Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

Time magazine famously exhorted people to “Eat Butter,” no doubt selling lots of magazines, but perhaps selling the public short. They followed up with an article doubling down, saying that “The case for eating butter just got stronger,” based on this study: “A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Butter Consumption…” “Pooling the studies, each daily serving of butter…was associated with [only] a 1 percent higher risk of death.” Wait, this is the study making the case stronger to eat butter? Further, the study suggests that swapping just like a spoonful of oil in place of butter every day might drop the risk of diabetes 8 percent. “Thus, even with the absence of major health associations in the present investigation, healthier…alternatives may be available.” But a 1 percent increase in death is pretty tiny; why didn’t they find a larger effect? Well, it is just a tiny part of people’s overall diets. It’s illustrative to review the candy literature.

The National Confectioner’s Association is fond of contracting with scientists-for-hire, like Exponent Inc., infamous for shilling for Big Tobacco and chemical companies, encouraging people to eat candy every day—in moderation, you know, like 15 to 25 jelly beans a day. Parents who restrict foods in an attempt to moderate a child’s intake of calories are just going to make their kids fat.

See, parents use “coercive practices to limit children’s access to palatable, energy-dense, or low-nutrient foods.” Parents have the gall to tell their kids when, how often, or how much candy can be consumed. Don’t they know butter…scotch is back? See, “evidence suggests that [candy] is not associated with adverse health effects.” Don’t believe me? Here you go: ten thousand kids surveyed, asked if they had eaten candy within the last 24 hours, compared to those who said no, and they concluded that “candy consumption [was] not associated with adverse health parameters in children or adolescents.” And, this, a study in which the authors declared “no conflicts of interest.” I mean, yeah, it was a study about candy funded by the candy industry, but “no conflicts of interest” here.

Do you see how with such a blunt instrument, it would be hard to tease out the specific health effects of candy? But we don’t need a study, since we already know what candy is—it’s candy. It’s mostly pure sugar. We already eat too much sugar; we don’t need more. You don’t need to pay off researchers to come up with a study like this. Or this. We already know what butter is—it’s butter. It’s mostly pure saturated fat. We already eat too much saturated fat; we don’t need more. Anyway, it gets even crazier. Candy consumers were “less likely to be overweight and obese than non-candy consumers.” So hey, maybe the candy company was right. Pass the Peeps!

“Is candy eating [really] a way to control body weight?” Who can name me an alternative explanation of why obese children eat less candy? Right, reverse causation. Perhaps it’s not that cutting down on candy led to obesity, but rather obesity led to cutting down on candy. In other words, the “reported candy consumption…reflects consequences of obesity, not causes,” just like people with heart disease may cut down on butter, clouding the association. And remember, it was “reported” candy consumption, which brings up the specter of reporting bias…. “In other words, overweight [kids may guiltily] underreport their intake of [candy] to a greater extent than do those of normal weight.”

I mean, otherwise, “what would the implications of [such a] finding…be?” Do we want to randomize kids to eat more candy to see if it makes them lose weight? “It is doubtful that any ethical committee would be happy about [that] kind of a proposal.” But you don’t know…until you put it to the test. Feed folks extra candy or peanuts—same number of extra calories, and surprise, surprise: those that ate all that extra candy gained more weight.

But what about that interventional trial showing that candy can improve ADHD symptoms? If you’re the Mars candy bar company, and you want to fund a study showing candy bars help kids focus, what would you do? The “parents were sent a formal letter instructing them…to send their kids to school hungry without breakfast” and then gave them like a candy bar or, basically nothing, an aspartame beverage, and, what do you know, feeding kids something rather than nothing “enhanced [their] ability to stay on task.” That reminds me of the famous Frosted Mini-Wheats ad, “clinically shown to improve kids’ attentiveness by nearly 20 percent,” with the really fine print explaining that this was compared to kids that ate nothing at all.

Butter’s been put to the test, too. Give people a single meal with butter, and you get a boost of inflammatory gene expression within just hours of consumption, significantly more than the same amount of fat in olive oil, or particularly walnut, form. You can randomize people to foods made with all sorts of different fats, and butter was shown to be the worst in terms of LDL cholesterol. Yeah, but these are short-term studies. It’s not like you can randomize people to eat or avoid butter for years, unless they’re locked up in a mental hospital, where by switching diets, you can raise or lower their cholesterol and cut coronary events by about 40 percent—though they also cut down on meat and eggs; so, it wasn’t just butter.

Yeah, but it’s not like you can get a whole country to cut down on butter. Oh, but you can: a 75 percent drop in butter consumption in Finland helped create an 80 percent drop in heart disease mortality, which was driven largely by the countrywide drop in cholesterol levels, which was largely driven by the countrywide dietary changes to lower saturated fat intake, like the move away from butter.

The bottom line is that researchers have put it to the test: randomized, controlled trials involving more than 50,000 people, and the more you decrease saturated fat content, the more your cholesterol drops, “the greater the protection.” “Lifestyle advice to all those at risk for cardiovascular disease,” to lower the risk of our #1 killer of men and women, population groups should continue to be advised to permanently reduce their saturated fat intake. The American Heart Association got so fed up with industry attempts to confuse people, they released a Presidential Advisory in 2017 to make it as clear as they could: “The main sources of saturated fat to be decreased [include] butter.”

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

Time magazine famously exhorted people to “Eat Butter,” no doubt selling lots of magazines, but perhaps selling the public short. They followed up with an article doubling down, saying that “The case for eating butter just got stronger,” based on this study: “A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Butter Consumption…” “Pooling the studies, each daily serving of butter…was associated with [only] a 1 percent higher risk of death.” Wait, this is the study making the case stronger to eat butter? Further, the study suggests that swapping just like a spoonful of oil in place of butter every day might drop the risk of diabetes 8 percent. “Thus, even with the absence of major health associations in the present investigation, healthier…alternatives may be available.” But a 1 percent increase in death is pretty tiny; why didn’t they find a larger effect? Well, it is just a tiny part of people’s overall diets. It’s illustrative to review the candy literature.

The National Confectioner’s Association is fond of contracting with scientists-for-hire, like Exponent Inc., infamous for shilling for Big Tobacco and chemical companies, encouraging people to eat candy every day—in moderation, you know, like 15 to 25 jelly beans a day. Parents who restrict foods in an attempt to moderate a child’s intake of calories are just going to make their kids fat.

See, parents use “coercive practices to limit children’s access to palatable, energy-dense, or low-nutrient foods.” Parents have the gall to tell their kids when, how often, or how much candy can be consumed. Don’t they know butter…scotch is back? See, “evidence suggests that [candy] is not associated with adverse health effects.” Don’t believe me? Here you go: ten thousand kids surveyed, asked if they had eaten candy within the last 24 hours, compared to those who said no, and they concluded that “candy consumption [was] not associated with adverse health parameters in children or adolescents.” And, this, a study in which the authors declared “no conflicts of interest.” I mean, yeah, it was a study about candy funded by the candy industry, but “no conflicts of interest” here.

Do you see how with such a blunt instrument, it would be hard to tease out the specific health effects of candy? But we don’t need a study, since we already know what candy is—it’s candy. It’s mostly pure sugar. We already eat too much sugar; we don’t need more. You don’t need to pay off researchers to come up with a study like this. Or this. We already know what butter is—it’s butter. It’s mostly pure saturated fat. We already eat too much saturated fat; we don’t need more. Anyway, it gets even crazier. Candy consumers were “less likely to be overweight and obese than non-candy consumers.” So hey, maybe the candy company was right. Pass the Peeps!

“Is candy eating [really] a way to control body weight?” Who can name me an alternative explanation of why obese children eat less candy? Right, reverse causation. Perhaps it’s not that cutting down on candy led to obesity, but rather obesity led to cutting down on candy. In other words, the “reported candy consumption…reflects consequences of obesity, not causes,” just like people with heart disease may cut down on butter, clouding the association. And remember, it was “reported” candy consumption, which brings up the specter of reporting bias…. “In other words, overweight [kids may guiltily] underreport their intake of [candy] to a greater extent than do those of normal weight.”

I mean, otherwise, “what would the implications of [such a] finding…be?” Do we want to randomize kids to eat more candy to see if it makes them lose weight? “It is doubtful that any ethical committee would be happy about [that] kind of a proposal.” But you don’t know…until you put it to the test. Feed folks extra candy or peanuts—same number of extra calories, and surprise, surprise: those that ate all that extra candy gained more weight.

But what about that interventional trial showing that candy can improve ADHD symptoms? If you’re the Mars candy bar company, and you want to fund a study showing candy bars help kids focus, what would you do? The “parents were sent a formal letter instructing them…to send their kids to school hungry without breakfast” and then gave them like a candy bar or, basically nothing, an aspartame beverage, and, what do you know, feeding kids something rather than nothing “enhanced [their] ability to stay on task.” That reminds me of the famous Frosted Mini-Wheats ad, “clinically shown to improve kids’ attentiveness by nearly 20 percent,” with the really fine print explaining that this was compared to kids that ate nothing at all.

Butter’s been put to the test, too. Give people a single meal with butter, and you get a boost of inflammatory gene expression within just hours of consumption, significantly more than the same amount of fat in olive oil, or particularly walnut, form. You can randomize people to foods made with all sorts of different fats, and butter was shown to be the worst in terms of LDL cholesterol. Yeah, but these are short-term studies. It’s not like you can randomize people to eat or avoid butter for years, unless they’re locked up in a mental hospital, where by switching diets, you can raise or lower their cholesterol and cut coronary events by about 40 percent—though they also cut down on meat and eggs; so, it wasn’t just butter.

Yeah, but it’s not like you can get a whole country to cut down on butter. Oh, but you can: a 75 percent drop in butter consumption in Finland helped create an 80 percent drop in heart disease mortality, which was driven largely by the countrywide drop in cholesterol levels, which was largely driven by the countrywide dietary changes to lower saturated fat intake, like the move away from butter.

The bottom line is that researchers have put it to the test: randomized, controlled trials involving more than 50,000 people, and the more you decrease saturated fat content, the more your cholesterol drops, “the greater the protection.” “Lifestyle advice to all those at risk for cardiovascular disease,” to lower the risk of our #1 killer of men and women, population groups should continue to be advised to permanently reduce their saturated fat intake. The American Heart Association got so fed up with industry attempts to confuse people, they released a Presidential Advisory in 2017 to make it as clear as they could: “The main sources of saturated fat to be decreased [include] butter.”

259 responses to “Is Butter Really Back? What the Science Says”

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

Fumbling Tom, Do you carry a lobbyist card for both the Meat and the Dairy industries? You do a great job of slipping a seed of doubt in for the newbies. How many pushups are you managing these days? Don’t be bashful, two is twice as good as one.

Do you track the statistics showing the improvement in health when dairy, including your beloved butter, is removed and replaced with clean starch-based eating? “Furious Pete” has his own Youtube channel. He hustles supplements to impressionable young boys. Pete promotes himself as a “competitive eater.” He can make a pound of butter slide down his throat in two minutes. It’s freakish the way he inhales animal flesh and dairy. He travels the world demonstrating his appetite for meat & dairy. Currently, poor Pete is fighting round three in his battle against testicular cancer. His second technical was removed this week and he started testosterone replacement therapy yesterday. It’s especially tough for Pete, you see, he fancies himself a bodybuilder. His body is soft at the moment. I warned him years ago but his focus is on internet “fame.” It’sad someone so young is easily influenced by nonsense like your argument for eating butter.

Nancy, is Fumbling Tom your adopted son? He must feel very week seeing you rescue him daily. And you always excuse Fumbling Tom saying he’s just this or just that. What I hear is Fumbling Tom emphasizing meat & dairy aren’t as bad as some folks think. He sounds exactly like a keto worshiper to me. “Yes but…” is his opening line weighing in on Dr. Greger’s presentations.. And you rescue him claiming he means no harm. Is it possible you are being used? Who needs to hear Fumbling Tom paraphrasing what’s in the video for all to see. How long must I follow along before your son says something clearly positive about a starch-based diet?

I’m glad everyone today is seeing what a jerk this Larry Maloney guy is. He’s clueless about Tom. Has no idea that Tom follows a PBD, and he’s just making a point to support the video. That’s how clueless Larry is…

Gomer, think about this…I’ve been on a starch-based diet most of my adult life (several decades.) I’ve followed McDougall as long and Dr. Greger many years. I have the highest respect for both. With my experience I still cannot see any indication Fumbling Tom is doing anything but running interference for the meat & dairy industries. Imagine how his words look to someone new to a whole plant diet? It must be confusing to them too. Maybe Fumbling Tom could learn to write. That means knowing his audience, If it’s you and Nancy, then let him mumble away. But if he wants to encourage converts he needs to be clear what he stands for, New folks get buried by all the minute details. It’s boring. Is that all he has to say? You and Nancy see Fumbling Tom as so helpless you have to defend him. You all are too comfortable with each other. Stop standing a circle blessing one and all. Open one critical eye.

We are not defending him. We’re simply engaging you. You’re a sick individual bro. I feel for you. You criticize Tom’s contributions as interference, yet, you cannot even see that you’re so narcissistic and attention-seeking that it is you who is the only interference in this forum.

You have zero respect for anyone here. So I’ll assume you’re a complete BS-er and have never followed McD. You act like you know what you’re talking about, but continue to ramble, troll, and fail to provide any logical contribution of any sort.

Why Gomer, I didn’t know you cared. For if you did, why not point out any errors in my thoughts. I’ve posted extensively aobut a starch-based diet, even including my favorite meals. I’ve said nothing good aobut met & dairy or keto and been totally supportive of Dr. Greger, Dr. McDougall, and others. Still you prefer to believe I know nothing. Yet you are so easily riled, manipulated into reacting like a scared brat. You aren’t looking very manly, Gomer. I think my original observation is correct, this group is more into girl talk than hard line defense/offense of nutritional science. The weak congregate to support and survive. Wow, are you that threatened? Your vocabulary has the same 26 characters as mine, yet you limit yours to calling me a racist an do their unknow words…seemingly based on your inability to digest thought. I guess your strategy is to deflect from calling me a racist by stirring the peanut gallery. Pitiful tactics…but I guess it’s all you have going for you. If you get me booted, it’s good riddance of you. And why would I want to post on a message board full of narrow-minded low-intellect folks like Gomer who knee jerk reaction is to call someone a “racist” for stating how the medical systems benefits form poorly fed African -American women? Gomer, you have equal opportunity to use your 26 characters in the alphabet to make constructive statements about nutrition. But you choose to run scare and hide behind other posters. You are a shameful boy. What’s for breakfast, Gomer? A bacon smoothie?

You are so wrong, Gomer. I am here (at the moment) and I respect me. And those words you use have psychiatric meaning. Are you trained in psychiatry? If so, is that your final diagnosis? Your love of Fumbling Tom has blinded you. No worry, I won’t come between. That’s not my lane. I can’t help but notice your are overly dramatic. Is that normal for a man?

Casper, obviously Slider hasn’t read the Comment Etiquette section before starting to post. If he really had followed Dr Greger at NutritionFacts ‘for years’ , he would realise who Mr Fumblefingers is, and offer him thanks for kindly sharing his knowledge with us instead of heaping abuse and insults at him and any other forum participant that catches his eye. Send a note to NF support staff.

Actually, you called me several vulgar names, Gomer, including a “racist” which is most offensive. But I would never report you. I prefer for folks to use their intellect to examine who/what I am…and hopefully someone will be so kind to share. But seriously, no one in the USA names a kid “Casper”, that’s only for ghosts.

I can only go by what he is posting. I’ll try harder and read with a gentler attitude. Maybe I can see some value in Fumbling Tom regurgitating every @*@^^$#(* ..word Dr. Greger says. Personally, I don’t need his interpretation or spin. Nor do I need Fumbling Tom to point out the obvious. If you benefit then that’s wonderful, for you.

Lida, seriously, why is that your only “obvious” conclusion? You may go through life ignoring wrongs, and YR’s method is to attack the messenger. But both non-solutions allow great science to be pecked away reduced to just another opinion. I say, “A starch-based diet eliminates heart disease.” Fumbling Tom says, “You can’t prove it.” I say, “diabetes is stopped, even prevented with a starch-based diet.” Fumbling Tom says, “You can’t convince me.” I say folks in other countries don’t get American diseases because they don’t eat our food.” Fumbling Tom says, “vegetables MIGHT be a little better than butter.” I can understand Fumbling Tom, and his mission to discredit a healthy plant-based lifestyle. Who I don’t understand is the buffoons who protect him. Maybe you can explain since you involved yourself.

Fumbling Tom invited (challenged) me to present “evidence” (Tom’s word) that a vegan lifestyle was healthy. I provides a list of links from the McDougall website. Without enough time elapse for Tom to view/read the material, he shot back, “that proves nothing.” He added, “what McDougall & Greger say doesn’t count.” But when challenged on his claim vegans were not healthy, Tom offered as his “pro of” his claim Dr Greger said so. So, if I offer a study which Greger or McDougall has reviewed it’s not good enough. But Fumbling Tom cites Greger as his authority as it suits his goal. That’s how simple-minded he is. He’s hypoctrical, to boot. Agreed he should be ignored, by you all, not me. I’m not gullable. What’s your excuse?

Hypocritical and gullible ——spell check
But honestly if you could present your arguments in a kinder and in less of a personal attack it might not cause our hackles to rise. Socrates was challenging but not cruel.

But Sock-it-to-me didn’t have cowards hiding in cyberspace sabotaging the good works of Greger and McDougall. Thanks for the spell check… I can spell but my grammar utility corrects and I’m not even aware…it’s complicated. I’ll try harder do you aren’t distracted by my other distraction…Fumbling Tom. I hope you check out that link I just pushed under Fumbling Tom’s nose. Do you think Tom’s really watching the Super Bowl with his mother? Like Michael Jackson says, “It’s not SEXUAL, its loving,… cookies & milk…we have a pajama party.”

Are you sure he’s represented by his photo? This is cyberspace. Where images of nerdy old-establishment guys are created with a single picture. What lurks behind the nerd persona? Could it be a 33 year old with a nose and tongue piercing and both ears fitted with two-inch hole rings. He may be sitting in his basement wearing a “Helter Skelter” sweatshirt. What’s his obsession with which is worse, butter or oil? Is that a talking point to guide keto worshipers over to a starch-based diet? Or is he drumming up more work for cows? I say “spare a cow, milk yer mama.” Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Honest, Tim, even before your suggestion I reread Fumbling Tom…and then again, He infuriates me. He contributes nothing here. Dr. Greger is too good a writer, presenter, director, and doctor, to appreciate Fumbling Toms messages. I truly don’t mean to be insulting but question the critical thinking skills of anyone who reads Fumbling Tom and concludes he’s supportive of Dr. Greger. I honestly don’t know if he has issues and needs to post here to feel “needed,” or is the lobbyist I suspect. The volume of posts suggests his task is to confuse and distract from the clean vegan message. The whole-plant view does not need a representative posturing as though presenting a fair and impartial view of meat & dairy. He (we) are not Fox News. And trust me, I’ve slept in the lions den those keto worshipers don’t show ant patients with a starch-based eating message. It usually begins somewhat like Fumbling Tom’s playbook, except they begin, “I’m sure vegan” helps some people, but it made me sick and ruined my sex life…buy keto has saved me.” Then they avoid reading (at least admitting) any Dr Greger, or other video I share correcting their claims. I won’t play that game here with Fumbling Tom. You see, when they create doubt that’s a win for keto, for meat & dairy. It’s he same playbook used by tobacco to keep their tobacco market coughing up money. Until finally the taxpayers could no longer afford cancer care for smokers. It may take that extreme before politicians admit the damage done by meat & dairy. Right now they are controlled by the meat & dairy industries and their lobbyists. Compromise is failure for vegans, success for keto, meat & dairy, and all the industries supported by sickly Americans. No one here asks hard question to Fumbling Tom. He’s accepted as “contributing.” Contributing what (besides the better side of butter?)

I feel confident I could steal the little feller from Gomer but I’m not like that. They are a match made in heaven. Is it possible you are sending out feelers to see if I’m available? I get hit on all the time, by both genders, buy my heart belongs to me. Calm down. Gomer. But since you ask, YR, my perfect man is an intelligent, attractive woman who loves ballroom and enjoys physical activities I do and doesn’t hesitate to add more to the list and share what’s on her mind. So, you can understand, YR, you fellas will have to grope each other, or look elsewhere.

Duh, I get it, you aren’t a guy. As for ballroom cracks questioning masculinity…it come with the territory. It’s hard to think of anything I enjoy more. It’s social, it’s physical, it’s fun. And learning was a blast. “Twinkle-toes”… not Author Murray. I had some great nationally rated professionals for private lessons. But your “inference”…if that’s what it is, is correct so far as ballroom has an abundance of “male” instructors. It’s not a big deal, at all. Newbies are sometimes squeamish but I’ve had mostly female instructors but purposely picked a male to improve my West Coast Swing. I’ve never felt insecure so it’s not an issue. Often, when husbands “don’t like to dance” it an awkward feeling for them that holds them back. …It fits in with your twinkle-toes comment. Professional male ballroom dancers are as athletic as can be. I recall an exhibition by one who I watched from ten feet away. As he danced away from me I watched his feet…could not see the movement he was so fast (cha cha.) I simply could not follow with my eyes. That speed/endurance/ flexibility is why football players sometimes cross train with dance. It’s always fun. Too bad your husband can’t get exposed without feeling threatened…if that’s the issue. I guess some men just don’t like to dance. I don’t like to bowl. But I can’t be objective about ballroom because I can’t imagine any man not enjoying it. Too often it’s mistakenly seen as “sexual.” It’s not, unless that’s what’s in the man’s mind. In ballroom everybody dances with everybody. Then again, if you are a couple, everyone respects your exclusivity. If the two of you ever want to try again, I suggest you find one, or more “local” ballroom dance instructors. Most cities have several non-profit dance clubs and you can get great referrals. Group lessons are dirt cheap and only last a few weeks. Continue, or not, it’s your choice. You progress from Bronze I to Bronze II to Silver, even “Gold” if you want. The “dance club” you mentioned is into selling expensive, long-term contracts. No reason to do that. I’m as passionate about sharing the joy of ballroom as I am for talking about a clean vegan way of life. Again, the guys I cross paths with who don’t like to dance are hiding a ill-conceived “phobia.” Time alone may have eased his comfort level. Get him out here for the first dance package and he may start dragging you along.

YR, I might add, I have both friends and acquaintances who ballroom and they come from every occupation. Lawyers, Neurologist, shrinks, nurses, professors, carpenters, we are family. It’s healthy, social, and ballroom dancers, regardless of their eating preferences, are fit and athletic. It’s natural and easy to be fit by dancing. When you are physically active you are not eating. Activity kills my appetite. That’s it, I’m empty.

John, it’s more likely Fumbling Tom is excusable as being ignorant of what he’s doing. He doesn’t strike me as especially bright. He survives here bullying others into thinking his cut n paste routine is “science.” Just when I thought I cornered him into exposing his ignorance with an “intellectual discussion” he went into hiding. I’m waiting to see how he defines a few terms he uses loosely. I doubt he’s the only poster here who isn’t legitimate. Some might not even be in the USA. Too bad Dr. Greger’s message board is infested with saboteurs, but it coms with the territory. “Big (whatever)”teams up with “stupid (whatever)” and they mislead and divert, and avoid and confuse., All that is indicative of their desperate struggle to maintain market share for poisonous products. If those industries didn’t see the writing on the wall, their patsy’s wouldn’t be here shoving their undecomposed “compost.” It’s possible Fumbling Tm is totally free of these demons and operates from a position of ignorance. Regardless, the harm is similar. Folks are confused and get minutiae as “”science.’ How wasteful is that? (rhetorical) No breakfast today. I may fast for a week, or two.

My internet service has been offline for most of the last two weeks but I have certainly been enjoying your imaginative posts when I can.

I am happy that you value frank comments. Hope you don’t mind if I return the compliment?

The comments pages are available for people to discuss the evidence outlined in the videos and related studies and issues. Intelligent debate is valued. This isn’t really a place where people are invited to blare out their own opinions and belittle others’.

Unfortunately your own posts suggest that intellectually you aren’t quite up with the great majority of the posters and other visitors here. For example, most people recognised sarcasm when they saw it. Not you though – not even when people tried to tell that that was exactly what it was. You also didn’t cotton on when i posted a quote from a Harvard study and commented in so many words that the clear implication was that we should ‘ditch’ oils and animal fats in favour of whole grains. You nevertheless insisted that the post clearly showed that I was promoting meat and dairy. To be honest, you don’t seem either particularly perceptive, bright or quick on the uptake. Going by your posts anyway.

You also mentioned that you’d traded (stocks? options? CFDs? Forex?) for a living and this was supposed to show how smart you are. Strangely, for a guy making big bucks trading for a living, you were also complaining bitterly about the price of nuts. All I can think is that you were one of the many who were sucked into trading during the bull market. During bull markets, the stock market increases in value and most stocks go up in price. If you buy stocks to sell later at a high price you can therefore often make a profit in such markets. It’s not that most such traders were particularly smart, it’s just that a rising tide lift all boats.

Many trading houses especially CFD and forex providers permitted traders to borrow 10, 20 or even 40 times their capital. So, somebody with $50,000 capital could easily control a million dollars when trading. In a bull market, making an annualised 10% return from stock trading that million dollars would’t have been that hard and,yeah, a trading income of $100,000 a year is definitely enough to live on. No wonder those guys were pleased with themselves. However, once the bull market ended, the easy profits stopped and people started losing money trading. i think the S&P500 declined 6% in 2018. And a loss of 6% of $1 million is $60,000 – all our supposed smart trader’s capital plus another $10,000. Some traders lost more. Much much more. Even their house and car. Is that what happened to you Slider? And you still haven’t figured out that being a trader doesn’t automatically mean you’re smart ? it might even mean that you weren’t bright enough to correctly assess the risks or behave appropriately when market conditions change.

Perhaps I’m wrong though and you are just an exccentric multi-millionaire who obsesses over the price of walnuts?

Fumbling Tom, of course your speculation is wrong. Do I need to say that? Speculating on my trading activities, my “motive” for commenting on it here, and my success/failure is wrong because you carelessly project your personal bias, not facts, just as you do speculating about matters of nutrition. Your animosity compels you to stumble where you have no knowledge or expertise. For you faking it is as good as it gets so you take substance from pretending while others achieve.

As for “recognizing sarcasm.” It’s you who confused my witty comment about Dr Greger’s power to influence the price of healthy foods by his mere mention with “bitterness” as you characterize it. Again, you are more than loose with the facts. As a fact of economics, anyone, even you, can chart the price of certain healthy plant foods and correlate their rise in price with market demand. That’s a consumer demand cultivated by videos, articles, “research,” and news about the super food’s benefits of, for example, plant X, Y, or Z. My comment on stock trading was a prelude to asserting the same charting techniques can be applied to anything, including the rise and fall of food prices, or sales. Nothing more. Again, you choose to add your characterization lifting my tightly crafted story out of context.

You’ve wasted both your and my time with theses several paragraphs of straw issues intended as diversions. Instead of replying to my comments about your idiotic cut n paste activities and your failure to define “evidence” and “vegan” and instead offer distracting nonsensical doubletalk about stack trading and other errlevivencies you stop to your only skill. Slipping and sliding. Fumbling Tom, you are a dodgeball specialist.

Your take on the stock market and the “bull market” sounds as much like cut n paste as are your “opinions” on nutrition. It doesn’t warrant further comment. I’m experienced talking with real stock traders, not wannabe pretenders who Google their every “thought.” Do I really need to restate where we were before you used “internet offline…downtime” to excuse your hiding spell? And it wasn’t the “two weeks” you claim but only three days of “absence” between your two most recent posts. It this how you want to continue? Me correcting your lies?

Furious Tom, I am a stock trader, not an “investor”. I don’t have a broker who puts me in the commodities you listed. I maintain my own stock trading accounts and limit activity to just one, or a few stocks, buying and selling “short term.” By definition “short term” might be a few minutes, hours, or days. By most it’s labeled “speculative.” Occasionally, I hold for months if I miss a move. When the market reveals the opportunity, I “short” stocks. If you understand shorting then you can appreciate I’m not relying on a bull market trend to continue. I trade the movement of the stock as it moves up or down driven by human emotion. It’s likely I’ve take a good share of your money over the years. You aren’t particularly savvy about the market so I suspect you are member of the emotional masses who hands me low-handing fruit. It’s like taking candy from a baby. Except grown men cry louder and longer. You are still wincing from your losses. You can’t Google good stock trades. Why haven’t you learned that?

You have taken this matter off topic. That’s not a good idea. Why not stick on your claims so we can refocus on that topic, right where we were before you went into hiding.
Did you and your mother enjoy the Super Bowl? Matching pajamas, how cute!

Fumbling Tom, discussing stock trading (one of my passions) with you is futile. No one is “sucked into trading the bull market” that I know of. A common scenario is investors take a position at the top based on emotion (greed). That same investor sells at the bottom based on emotion (fear). Human nature never changes, fear and greed define stock market movement. You could be one of those investors. I take their money every day. Their money is lost by selling prematurely….not buying too high (although that mistake limits profits.)

I’m curious, Fumbling Tom. You said, “Many trading houses especially CFD and forex providers permitted traders to borrow 10, 20 or even 40 times their capital.” I don’t trade “CDF and forex.” Like I said, I trade stocks. But please satisfy my curiosity., Who are these “many” who permit margin buying at a 40 times capitalization rate? I’ve never traded with any American company allowing anything over 100% of my trade. And they require a 30% reserve in the account untraded. Please, again, I’m asking, don’t waste my time Googling things you know nothing about. You irritate me with your boring cut n pastes.

Speculating on margin is a sucker’s bet. Most of my trades are much smaller than the amounts you laddish about. My experience is placing a small amount of five to ten thousand dollars at risk is all that’s needed to continually and systematically take money out of the stock market. LOL, I feel silly talking shop to you. We both know it just drives you to Google more dribble. It would be easier if I simply trained you in operating a stock trading activity….assuming you can clear your head of pre-conceived ideas. That’s your failing. If you want to learn stock trading 101 you need a great stock trading software. Of course you would not recognize one.

Fumbling Tom, you obsess too much about my intellect. Most folks don’t use the intellect they have, you for example. Bull markets don’t just collapse and “easy money” as you call it, “comes to an end,” as you claim. A bull market collapses because emotional investors over-extend themselves buying. The mass buying runs the market price UP. Once “everyone” who want’s to buy into stock “A”, for example, has “invested” there are no more buyers. The sellers start liquidating and as the masses follow suite there are now all sellers where there were all buyers. The market collapses…In a few…the cycle begins again. Human nature (greed & fear) never change so the market cycles never change. If you look at a stock chart from 300 years ago it’s no different from today. Likewise, if you charted the price of food over the last hundred years it would look typically like a stock chart. Remove the stock symbol and you would not know the difference. It’s two steps forward and one step back…then three steps forward and one step back. And three steps back and two forward. There are many trends and many cycles. The long-term trend might be up, but the short-trend I’m trading (inside the long term trend) may be down. It makes no difference to me if it’s a bull or bear market. What matters is whether I recognize the trend I’m presently trading. A stock trading tip I share occasionally is the key to profits is to recognize if (when) the market moves against you and get out…to live and trade another day. Again, more info wasted on a wannabe stock trader. Unless you see the error of your ways, Fumbling Tom, you can stay busy cutting n pasting stock market gibberish into infinity. But I will only reply to so much. If you have nothing intelligent to say about the stock market why expand your area of ignorance to two subjects? I’m busy creating drawings for a utility patent so please slow down and only post your “thoughts” on relivent topics to this message board. When I get a few…I’ll reacquaint you with your silly claims about, butter, “vegan,” & “evidence.” You know the issues you brought up but then went into hiding hoping to dodge. Can’t you pick up where we left off or is your strategy to ignore your blunders while making more, Fumbling Tom?
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

It seems we’ve all been duped by research on many nutritional claims. Add nuts to the list. If the medical doctors at the forefront of nutritional science are occasionally lied to successfully, imagine the difficulty for me, for example ferreting out the facts on my own! I wonder if Dr. Greger will update his take on nuts too, based on the researchers exposure as fraudulent? I’ve always suggested skipping nuts & avocados when on a weight-loss regimen. That rule applies if you have heart disease, too.

Also, you were talking about the various “vegan diets” out there. I agree, the label is used too generously, perhaps haphazardly? The video talks about the vegan diet of 104 year old Dr. Wareham. We can get inspiration from his experience, don’t you agree?

I’m starting a 24 lesson college-level course later this month on how to do research. Afterwards I’ll apply my new skills and snoop around a little. Any thoughts on nuts?

So, Nancy, let’s see if I get this…Dr. Greger does a video explaining all the technical so Fumbling Tom understands. Fumbling Tom explains it to you. And you are so kind to break it down for me. I still don’t understand. Does Fumbling Tom revere a starch-based lifestyle? Or does he eat butter, meat…and other dairy? Well, let’s be clear, where is Fumbling Tom on fast food, processed foods, and bottled oils? Does he share that information? Or does he just speak to clarify what Dr. Greger says? It’s his right to be a closet eater but knowing what he actually eats, even just what he admits to eating, adds clarity to his comments.

Hi Nancy
Crazy thing. This comment section goes through waves. In the past there would always be a couple people trolling. Now there seems to be some new faces. Or have they simply changed their names?

Hi Gail, yes indeed there seems to be a personality disorder in the house once again. Remember ‘he-whose-name-should-not-be-spoken’? I figured that Tom either wore him down or he dropped dead of a heart attack. I hope it’s the former & not the latter, although it wouldn’t surprise me one bit. Or maybe he just went nuts, we’ll never know. But I don’t think it’s him because H-W-N-S-N-B-S’s command of English was a little shaky, especially when it came to syntax. Unfortunately there have been many others, and he could be one of them. We’ll never know. Anyway, my SOP is to not engage. I don’t even read their posts. I work & I’m a care giver for a family member, so I don’t have time for that kind of negative nonsense.

Yep…I’ve always posted under my name…”slider’ is from my stock trading days. I was kicked off that site too. I kept calling trades faster, more accurately than the operators/owners of “Worden 2000” (“free”) stock trading software. LOL, the owner’s son used to do videos and trade a stock live. I called the next move before he did so he always did a slow burn. The last straw was when I waited until after he made his call on the stocks next movement…Only after he committed, I called the opposite. A few minutes later the stock moved my way instead of his. It was hilarious…a few minutes after that I got personal email form the message board monitor of that stock trading website…he/she said, “I like your trading style, Slider, “But I’ve been told to shut you down. LOL, It’s a badge of honor. My most recent best pick is AKS. Buy under two dollars and it always goes to 3, 4…maybe even seven bucks a copy. One caveat…if it doesn’t move up in a few weeks then hold it a year or so…and you’ll be richly rewarded…also, this is not a stock tip and I am not recommending buying it at this moment. It’s “consolidating” so won’t likely move for awhile. I sit and wait and watch…sorta like here. But yes, I’m “busted” if that’s the intent. I don’t like hiding behind a pseudo-name. On most stock trading sites I was “Dancer,” As in ballroom dancer…I got lots of ribbing but it was mostly good-natured. It’s great exercise and you are having fun. When I strictly traded I always lifted weights throughout the day. Otherwise I would have become emaciated, like doctors do. OK, OK, too much info..

Fumbling Tom, for real balance, and meaningful comparison, you need to be aware the diseases caused by dairy and meat consumption doesn’t occur in countries like Nigeria, Uganda, and anywhere not eating the American diet. You cite minuscule tidbits distracting from the profound difference between starch-based and meat & dairy based. The results are as different as night and day. As different as life and death. But you instead look at itsy bitsy minute differences between various animal fat sources. Why distract from the great news about reversing diseases with a clean whole-plant subsistence? I’ve heard of doubting Toms but I never met one who was both a meat & a dairy lobbyist. Since you are into “balancing “reports” about butter and meat, how do you balance your meals? For dinner, I’m having “Cincinnati Chile.” Folks are confused by that. It’s more of a chili sauce than “eating chili.” It has both cocoa and cinnamon in the ingredients. I even add some molasses. It’s eaten over spaghetti with oyster crackers to soak up the flavorful juices, or on veggie dogs…it’s sooo good. I leave out the meat replacing with lentils. It’s “smack yer mama” good. So, Fumbling Tom, how do you like your butter served?

Fumbling Tom, so you don’t mislead newbies I must interject here. It’s much cheaper to eat a starch-based diet than meat & dairy. Aside from the cost of groceries being much cheaper when starch-based, The consumer avoids the high cost of life-sustaining drugs and continued medical intervention. Besides no one should have to compromise their vegan belief’s to exist. Have you considered gardening? Much of my food is free, from the ground. A few slices of garden fresh tomato with hash browns is hard to turn down. And garden fresh tomato and a kale leaf on my bean burger is too delicious to think about in this minus thirty degree weather…suffice to say prostitution is a way to earn money but there are more noble ways, Fumbling Tom. Plant a few seeds; make an honest man of yourself. Or do you prefer to whine about the high-cost of organics? Even northern climates can have two growing seasons. I’m always close by to help (in a cyber sort of way.)

Fumbling Tom, much of what you write is boring so escapes me. I pass over it. But again, I’m looking for affirmation you advocate a clean plant-based lifestyle of some variation. Instead you ramble on with details more suitable for a biochemistry class. The bottom line is eat clean vegan. No need to split hairs over which animal fat is the second worst. Is that the one you want folks to choose? Instead of wimpy posts to me, why not explain your objective with butter-type posts. I’m really trying to understand. For whatever reason, Gomer is mesmerized by you, titillated even. What’s your power over him? But as importantly, are you upgrading your physical fitness training? Bodyweight works…pushups, squats, you know the routine. You sit there and athrophy away. Redo your glamor shot each year and you’ll see.

Fumbling Tom, take Columbo as an example. He came off as a doofus. He was always present5ing facts and figures to anyone who listened, but he always solved the crime. I read your posts and they are the crime. That’s not right. Do you see any problems you can solve, at even address, or maybe define? You are stuck in a sort of “loop and you can’t escape. Try this…pick an issue, define it. Dissect it, then solve it. Please, no more, “The thigh bones connected to the knee bone…the knee bones connected to the ankle bone.” I get it. Put it all together and show us what’s percolating between your ears. There must be something?

It’s the same as when I talk to people about olive oil, who erroneously believe it is healthy to eat – I tell them, it’s kinda like cigarettes: Marlboro lights are better to smoke than Camel straights, but it doesn’t mean they’re GOOD FOR YOU! The same way, Olive oil – or butter in this case – is better to eat than lard or beef, but it doesn’t mean it’s good for you. People usually “get it” after that explanation. ;-)

Gomer, I demonstrate how mighty the pen is. You trump the pen demonstrating the power in whining to mama. I’ve lost nothing getting “banned” You gain nothing except a clearer view of your own thoughts. Good luck with that.

If you want Slider banned, that is your opinion. Calling any person a “sick individual [who] needs mental assistance” is a direct attack to that person’s well-being. Remarks that implicate other beings as ‘possibly insane’ or ‘mentally ill’ are basically modern day nazi code-words used specifically for the purpose of torture. How is this person harming you or anyone else? Their typed out words are not hurting anyone. Your attempt at dominating other people with regimens of forced chemical restraint are never justified. These people who are victims of the mental health system through forced drugging need to be freed, and you are making the problem much worse by directly participating in their persecution. Nothing can justify chemical torture.

Forcing drugs / mental diagnoses on undesirable people is a despicable hate crime, and everyone with any moral compass knows it. If the drugs were not painful, they would not have to be forced. And, let’s be honest, a reasonable person who is aware of the risks / harms of those terribly damaging drugs would never volunteer to a routine of having to take them throughout their life. This is just complete corruption, and it is time we all become aware of this! Too many people are getting hurt. Too many have suffered under the spell of this painful practice.

I personally advocate for people who are in need of mental help to be treated to a comfortable room, with full internet access 24-hours a day, and unlimited plant-based nutrition – Oh, and a decent treadmill for them to use at will for God’s sake. With time, and the gentle council of friendly volunteers (or computer based learning software), these supposedly unwell people will cool down, and see things rationally. If not, they will have a decent life in their locked room. Some of these people are morally way ahead of their society, and are persecuted because they make the people around them immediately aware of their own cruelty. As Slider mentioned, starch based meals are dirt cheap, and treadmills are a dime a dozen these days. And, of course, every decent person would agree that keeping people off the internet is basically just stopping them from learning / progressing.

Prisons should all be equipped like this. Anything else is just purposeful harassment of already suffering people. These are our people! Our brothers and sisters. Our sons and daughters, and we treat our fellow beings like trash! We must unite against this corruption, or we will have to wallow in it forever.

Slider, too many people are stuck in a funk. A daze of corruption they can’t escape from. Maybe your charged comments are just what we all need to wake up, and start demanding that the suffering finally be ended.

Fumbling Tom, I did read your butter link, it’s lukewarm, a happy story for all sides. It even leads one paragraph with “Happy news for butter lovers.” Again, are you able to discipline your typing finger to put all the good starch-based food news in your 1st paragraph? That’s assuming you can write a positive paragraph about whole plant subsistence. A demonstration would be welcomed. Are you man enough? Or will it cost you your lobbyist job?

Fumbling Tom you state, “Yes, but let’s have a little balance here. Eating butter appears to decrease cardiovascular risk compared to eating beef for example.” And you add, or cite a “report,” “‘When dairy fat was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively.” Why replace one fat with another? I suspect you (they) are talking about bottled fat. Why is this important to you Fumbling Tom? What “balance is achieved with bottled fat? Who financed your silly report? Are you ever interested in following the money trail, Fumbling Tom? You keep posting “reports” blessing, butter, meat, or oil. Reports that later in the text mentions the best results are with “whole grains,” for instance. Even then I suppose the results are whole grains eaten with meat & dairy, not whole grains as in a plant-based diet. And you want to see a vegan study? Ever look for one, Fumbling Tom?

I do not agree. I don’t think that it is OK that all of this violence towards animals is being joked at by the majority of posters here. I have watched these people post here over the last couple of years, and it makes me sick to think that none of you voiced a protest against the sexual lubrication remark involving butter.

I can’t believe I was duped into thinking so many of you were upstanding people. Don’t you all realize children can read this stuff?

Slider, I think you are doing what is necessary. It is shameful that these people don’t have the guts to voice the truth about the dark secrets within society like you do. The fact that you are here standing up for a better world gives me hope that someday soon the world will be free of all of this animal abuse, murder, and the majority of people not caring one bit.

“Ruth” could there be a more ignorant comment/conclusion than yours? Firstly, If I “made my point” as you claim, the appropriate response isn’t to stop making “points.” And secondly, as another poster said, “don’t read them.” What power do I have that prevents you from posting? The short period I’ve posted I’ve seen nothing from you. But your first post to me is claiming you “can’t post.” It’s self evident you can. The remaining question is, “do you have anything intelligent to say, “Ruth.”

“Ruth”, the clock is ticking. I await your first “meaningful conversation.” But you must understand my “sarcasm.” You see, I have it on good authority that cyberspace, like the universe, is big enough for both of us. So, what’s really holding you back? My topic is usually a starch-based diet. What’s yours, “Ruth?”

Just a friendly heads-up to Dev: there’s a rumour going around that nutritional yeast increases IGF and I’ve of the volunteers said there was no source on the last video about hay fever but one of the comments theorized because it is a complete protein and protein increases IGF…

‘ A recent systematic review found 7 controlled
trials, including the 2 just mentioned, that compared
coconut oil with monounsaturated or polyunsaturated
oils.97 Coconut oil raised LDL cholesterol in all 7 of these
trials, significantly in 6 of them. The authors also noted
that the 7 trials did not find a difference in raising LDL
cholesterol between coconut oil and other oils high in
saturated fat such as butter, beef fat, or palm oil. Clinical
trials that compared direct effects on CVD of coconut oil
and other dietary oils have not been reported. However,
because coconut oil increases LDL cholesterol, a cause
of CVD, and has no known offsetting favorable effects,
we advise against the use of coconut oil.’https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510

Once again the doctor misrepresents studies. The systematic review of butter that he cites says the following:

CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests relatively small or neutral overall associations of butter with mortality, CVD, and diabetes. These findings do not support a need for major emphasis in dietary guidelines on either increasing or decreasing butter consumption, in comparison to other better established dietary priorities; while also highlighting the need for additional investigation of health and metabolic effects of butter and dairy fat.

So the conclusion is that essentially butter is neutral. So I and tens of millions of others will and should continue eating something that is wonderfully satisfying and filling.

How are his biases any different from those that he sites in his reviews?

Do you notice that he never provides links to the actual articles that he quotes from? It’s pretty clear why that’s the case.

The keto diet will rise your fasting glucose levels (glucose is also made from fat, muscle, etc. in the liver). This extra glucose creates an osmotic effect and pulls the water from tissue into the high glucose blood. Then you need to pee frequently and you also get thirsty (from dehydrated tissues). Neither to say that high fasting glucose is also bad long term.

This sounds confusing to me: “glucose is also made from fat, muscle, etc. in the liver.”

While this is technically accurate, you failed to make known the fatal flaw in the logic of keto. To me, it would seem more cogent to tell the person the truth directly, and especially because many people are getting hurt.

When fat is used as fuel by the body, the process begins in the liver. When you eat fat, most of it is stored in your fat cells which makes you fatter. Some is deposited into your muscles / organs which is called ectopic fat (literally out-of-place fat); this directly fuels the degeneration of your cellular machinery through a multi-faceted cascade of inflammation and lonely-electron-carrier damage (this can kill you). The liver is connected to your blood stream, so some of the fat makes its way to the liver to be converted to glucose which can then be converted to energy. Through exertion, or starvation, fat cells will spill the stored fat out, and again some will make it to the liver to be turned into glucose. Fat in the liver is an unavoidable consequence of eating fatty foods, and is not favorable to survival.

Even in pet animals, a diet high in fat has become nearly pandemic. It has been demonstrated that feeding high fat diets to pets can make them fat. This is obviously not healthy. I don’t know a single person who condones feeding a high-fat diet to their pet dog or cat because they all have seen that it can cause harm. These animals suffer from obesity as well, and they have it the worst because they are rarely fed meals high in antioxidants (which is very clearly harmful to them). Nobody I know would ever eat or feed pet-foods to their family. Why? Because there are now dozens of whistle blowing agencies that document the pollution levels in these canned/bagged foods. Does 50 times the acceptable limit of lead sound good to you? Disgraceful that we feed this cheap garbage to our pets and never think twice about it.

The bottom line, the high-fat diet victims are not being given free access to information. A ketosis diet does not stop the body from getting nutrition from glucose, but it does force the liver to convert fats into glucose. This process is gluconeogenesis, but this is a beat around the bush way of saying that the liver is forced to turn fat into glucose.

This lack of adequate info really bugs me, and especially when I see my friends downing bottles of oil because they are now “keto.” My mother used to poor oil on our pet foods until they got obese, and died a painful arthritic death. What hurts the most is that we can’t get the knowledge we need when we need it. It seems like a crime to me that innocent people get hurt because no one can tell them the truth when they really need it. Doesn’t it seem like a crime to you that people are suffering?

Elaine, some people feel better on keto, at first, maybe 6 months or so. Long term your production of insulin will drop. Then it will no longer suppress your liver making glycogen. Your blood sugar will rise and you will then become diabetic.
You will also be raising your risk of heart disease and cancer if you are doing high protein, especially animal-base protein. They raise mTor and IGF-1, look it up!

Elaine, be honest, whatever you are eating and calling “keto” allows you to maintain your addiction to fatty meat, butter, and bottled oils. You have lowered your calories. Hat alone helps you feel better. You are not eating as much processed junk food. That too helps you feel better. But be honest, any diet that eliminates calories and eliminates processed foods will cause to feel better and lose weight. Unfortunately keto does not remove the fatty meat & oils that make African-American women obese and sickly. They call their fatty food & oil “soul food.” Most keto worshipers talk constantly about being IN “ketosis,” but are not because they sneak the carbs they crave. You can’t live in a ketonic state in perpetuity and be healthy. A starch-based diet cuts calories drastically and removes the risk of diseases cause by meat & dairy consumption. You are presently crediting weight loss benefits to keto. The reals cause of your improved feelings is calorie reduction and reducing the junk you eat. The harm done by keto, (meat & oil) is slow to develop so you might not see symptom until long after you stop keto. John McDougall, MD has a free diet/nutrition plan on his website. When you are ready to improve on keto check it out. For breakfast I’m having “air fried” hashbrowns with green pepper, onion, & mushrooms seasoned with garlic, and S&P. What kind of oil will you drink with your bacon to lubricate your large instestine.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

The comclusion wasn’t that the effect of butter was neutral – it was that there is a small negative or neutral effect. There’s a difference.

In any case observational studies like these are subject to confounding – for example, by the effect of replacement nutrients. In other words, eating butter had a small negative or neutral effect …. but compared to eating what? The usual meat and processed refined carb foods common in Western countries, which are probably just as unhealthy as butter? They don’t say.

However, a Harvard study from the same year actually looked at the effect of eating dairy fats compared to eating other foods. It found:

My point was that Dr Greger chose not to quote the main conclusion of the study that the findings do not support decreasing – or increasing – butter use, because that would have contradicted his pre established conclusion that butter is bad for you. Do you defend his making a big deal of that meta analysis while ignoring the author’s main take away?

Dr Gregers point that I get, is how studies are reported to the public with this one even claiming a ‘meta-analysis’ that clearly ignored the mountain of well known data on butter, some of which was presented by Dr Greger. Even a meta-analysis can be rigged. Butter causes far worse that 1% higher risk of death which many people will believe.

Two points. First, the video points out that the study was flawed, so it is reasonable Dr. Greger would ignore the author’s conclusions. Second, even with the flawed study, the main finding is that butter use is at BEST neutral, but probably slightly harmful in the aggregate. So the author’s conclusion that is it basically not worth it to make recommendations for less butter use is simply that researcher’s take on the data, and Dr. Greger is certainly within his rights to come to a different conclusion from the same findings. You obviously think an small increased risk of cv disease is worth it to you to continue to eat butter. I don’t. We can both be right.

I don’t at all agree that there is any additional risk that goes along with my consumption of butter and other dairy products. Quite the contrary.

I was treated for advanced cancer many years ago by a brilliant Nutritional Doctor who instructed me that I must eat dairy and meat along with lots of fresh organic fruits and vegetables – mostly but not entirely raw – due to both my genetic make up and the type of cancer I had.

As such I have survived for decades after a diagnosis of – literally – incurable cancer. The fallacy of so many folks here and elsewhere is their arrogance in believing that one way of eating is best for every single person.

I am sure that my comment will be either ignored or rationalized away as most of you appear to be more swayed by ideology then by logic and evidence.

Some people are falsely diagnosed with cancer and some people with actual cancer do have remissions. There might have been a thousand people who did what he did and he might have been the only one who survived. We just don’t know. Nor does he. He attributed his survival to a high fat diet. Some people attribute their survival to prayer, or to non-existent amygdalin in sweet apricot kernels or to consuming baking soda or to drinking urine. What they believe is not scientific proof of anything, no matter how sincere their beliefs are.

Yes, I do notice the lack of links. And like Dr. Greger said, butter is such a tiny fraction of one’s overall fat/calorie/food intake that it does make sense that it would prove to be neutral. And using LDL as a barometer is outdated; people who have “normal” and super low LDL levels as well as low other lipid levels have heart attacks.

That’s because heart disease can have various causes besides high cholesterol. These can range from viral and bacterial infections to stress.

However, the fact is that cholesterol is an important risk factor

‘We assessed whether the association between LDL and ASCVD fulfils the criteria for causality by evaluating the totality of evidence from genetic studies, prospective epidemiologic cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials of LDL-lowering therapies. In clinical studies, plasma LDL burden is usually estimated by determination of plasma LDL cholesterol level (LDL-C). Rare genetic mutations that cause reduced LDL receptor function lead to markedly higher LDL-C and a dose-dependent increase in the risk of ASCVD, whereas rare variants leading to lower LDL-C are associated with a correspondingly lower risk of ASCVD. Separate meta-analyses of over 200 prospective cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials including more than 2 million participants with over 20 million person-years of follow-up and over 150 000 cardiovascular events demonstrate a remarkably consistent dose-dependent log-linear association between the absolute magnitude of exposure of the vasculature to LDL-C and the risk of ASCVD; and this effect appears to increase with increasing duration of exposure to LDL-C. Both the naturally randomized genetic studies and the randomized intervention trials consistently demonstrate that any mechanism of lowering plasma LDL particle concentration should reduce the risk of ASCVD events proportional to the absolute reduction in LDL-C and the cumulative duration of exposure to lower LDL-C, provided that the achieved reduction in LDL-C is concordant with the reduction in LDL particle number and that there are no competing deleterious off-target effects.

But sure if you measure the cholesterol levels of heart attack patients in hospital you find that many perhaps even most of them have ‘normal’ or even low choesterol levels. However, what the self-proclaimed “cholesterol experts” you apparently listen to never tell us, is that heart attacks and heart surgery cause cholesterol to decline (as do other illnesses and injuries for that matter). Why don’t they tell us this? After all, this general effect was first reported in 1926. Do they not know or do they keep quiet about it to keep selling their sensational books and diet plans to people who just want an excuse to keep on eating butter and beef?

Fumbling Tom, the bigger conclusion is a starch-based diet eliminates heart disease so typical Americans can eat clean, effectively without ever knowing what you copied and pasted. Why don’t you lead with that occasionally? For example, write this for your first line…“In spite of the following minutiae, eat a starch-based diet for a healthy life.” Then write your usual, “bla bla bla…”

Sorry Slider but I am just not as bright as you. I just fumble along in my own way. I know my limitations though which is why I call myself Mr Fumblefingers.

While you are here though perhaps you can post the evidence that “a starch-based diet eliminates heart disease’? For some unfathomable reasonable, not everybody is prepared to take your word for it. Wretches.

There are many more than you’ll care to read/watch. But let me guess, you’ll post back claiming nothing I provided is “proof.” If that’s your rebuttal, please clearly state what constitutes “proof” in your brain. Is that possible? I ask because it’s hard to hit a moving target and I feel this one trembling already.

Fumbling Tom, thanks for sharing. You say you call yourself “Mr. Fumbles” because of limitations, but don’t share which limitations earn you that moniker. It’s rumored you were suspected of “Dr. shopping” until investigation revealed a dark motive. All the doctors on your list are proctologists. What’s up with that? Imagine a proctologist nicknamed “Dr. Fumbles.” He might be your first choice but others would think twice. And think how fate would be changed if Don Juan DeMarco or Ron Jeremy had a reputation as “Mr. Fumbles?’ So, “Mr. Fumbles” represents your creative best? Maybe you were having a bad day. I’m thinking…”Mr. Mom.”

Fumbling Tom, I realize your compulsive cut n paste rituals are an important part of boosting self esteem. But have you considered accepting (no not “mental help” silly,) I was going to say accepting another’s view or opinion? I know the power you must feel cutting n pasting away in your mother’s basement, but it’s possible you are missing out on a more full life. Take your “cohort study” cut n paste offering. It’s truly a beaut. May I add to the discussion with this link? http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~ryantibs/journalclub/ioannidis.pdf It’s a research article explaining the pitfalls when relying on “cohort studies.” If it benefits you please let me know, my self esteem needs a little massaging occasionally too. Ta ta

Fumbling Tom, you sure know how to muck up a discussion with selected reports. According to your cut n paste stories, cholesterol, like butter is either good for us or it’s not good for us. It depends on who’s flipping the coin. A simpler bottom like is folks who don’t eat meat & dairy and processed foods & bottled oil have a different “normal” cholesterol. They have the cholesterol their body produces, not that amount plus the added cholesterol from meat & dairy. In those individuals, cholesterol isn’t a procurer to heart disease because they are free of heart disease. Still you muddle away. Since you claim tp present the studies “like Dr. Greger does,” please explain among the thousands published each year, how do YOU choose which are relivent and reliable? What background/training equips you to be the eyes and ears for the rest of us? I hope I’m not putting you in a predicament where you need to cut n paste to speak on your previous cut n paste. It’s simpler if you just aim your typing finger at the keyboard and express your “thoughts.” Does that ever happen?

Gail, Tom provided an extremely well thought out response. Thanks, Tom. You’re a gem on this board.

I’ll give you my quick 2 min. “Normal” is meaningless since that includes people with TBC of 200. 500K deaths per year and 500K open heart surgeries are also normal. So never accept normal by today’s standards. We’ve arrived at 150 TBC to be safe and heart attack proof. There may be an exception here and there but that’s irrelevant. Those with Super Low (to me that means TBC 110-120) will most likely never ever ever have a heart attack.

Why get sucked into a numbers game? Eat a clean starch-based lifestyle and exercise. Do that and you’ve done most all you can to protect from our post industrial revolution artificial environment. Oh, and don’t call people “racist.” That alone causes longevity barriers.

A researcher makes a so-called meta-analysis looking only at data that supports his predetermined position on the matter, completely ignoring the mountain of well known research on butter, and the person presenting some of that ignored mountain of knowledge is biased?

If anything Dr Greger is pointing out how research is used to manipulate people into just hearing what they want to hear if they do not pay attention to the details.

Thanks. You are correct. I did not see the sources. It is interesting though that instead of responding to the fact that the conclusion of the article he cites does not implicate butter as being bad for you you simply tell me to go visit another website.

It’s also interesting that when I click on the link to bring up the abstract further down or a number of related studies – one of which clearly shows no linkage between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease.

You let yourelf be kidded Heb. It’s important to read the studies critically. The saturated fat question is another one where cnfounding by issues such ignoring the effect of replacement nutrients is ignored. Compared to what is the real question. Saturated fat is probably better than trans fats and refined carbs but it’s still an unhealthy dietary choice

Thank you for this information. I know someone on the KETO diet who swears by the health benefits of butter because that is what she was told and sold. Damon shame if you ask me. I sent her your video.

Though they are getting cancer and heart issues now, so I have moved a few of them from Keto closer to WFPB now.

Some stayed Keto, but they lean heavily on essential oils to deal with pain and trying to stop cancer from coming back. My step mother though after her stroke probably went further Keto thinking it was the cheating versus the Keto.

KETO to me is equal to Credit card usage. You’ll eventually find yourself in a dangerous situation. Luckily, on a plant based diet, one could escape even severe health issue fairly quickly. Not as easy when deep in financial debt.

I agree with the comment about coconut oil. So many vegan (as opposed to plant based) cookbook authors adore coconut oil as a substitute for butter precisely because it acts like butter, i.e. it’s saturated. Someone ought to whack them upside the head and explain why this is BAD for them.

Sadly, LG, those poor souls are told how to live continuously. Advertisers “remind” them what to eat for every meal and every snack, and every midnight run to the fast food joint. Media tells us what to eat throughout our days on every news and talk show. What AM “news” show personality hasn’t sworn their love of all-things “bacon.” Media is chock full of cook shows and cook show segments. Rachael Ray says, “My husband loves bacon with his sausage gravy & biscuits.” (applause) An another show Rachael declares, “When I fry steaks I add a few arugula stems so I don’t have to make a salad.” (applause)

A few generation back our relatives all managed to eat without being reminded, and were thin. Today it’s as though media fears we’ll all starve if they don’t constantly drop hints. Hmm, could it be more than that? Could it be they are the food police telling sheeple what to eat? Media exist on advertising dollars and that ,money source isn’t big cabbage.

So, if I counter with nutritional science to expose the deception, you say I’m wrong? So, how will you get the meat & dairy, and medical & drug industries to play by your rules? I suspect they are happy maintaining the status quo.

Why would you want to “thin the herd” of people, compassionate vegans even, who eat coconut oil? I certainly don’t like recipes surrounding coconut oil but why exactly do we not want coconut oil eaters on the planet…? Compassion for coconuts? That’s COCONUTS!

Barbie, I don’t consider them “vegan” cookbooks, but opportunists. Still, if I see an occasional interesting recipe, I make it without the oil. Most use oil for browning onions. If a main ingredient is coconut oil (1/4 cup) I know it’s not meant for vegans, but intended to mislead newbies. Some want o asset if it’s comes form a plant it’s not “vegan”. I qualify with the additives, “clean,” and “healthy” vegan. Oil squeezed out of a plant and bottled is not heathy. Mankind did not evolve eating so much oil.

I find it incredibly misleading how research studies are presented to the public. The media loves to sensationalize any study that is contrary to current popular opinion. Yet how many times will a ‘breakthrough’ turn out to not be repeatable with any other credible researchers? Never have I seen any of those ‘studies’ reported mention that only one team (with probable bias) made the claim and it has yet to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Never have I seen any of the media later make a retraction when it turns out that the health story they sensationalized turns out to be a big nothing. That would mean pointing out that what they sensationalize might not be true. And to make matters worse, the crooks in the research business are now claiming to be doing ‘meta-analysis’, of course not mentioning at all that they only looked at research that already backed their intended outcome and probably intentionally ignored any research that said butter was bad.

Dr. Greger, I watch every one of your video blogs and share them in my FB page. I also personally email them to a number of my private training clients. I have stopped eating meats,pork and chicken mainly because of your insightful research. Thank you thank you thank you for all the time and energy you and your team put into digging through the bullshit we are all fed from bogus studies, misinformation and our own blissful ignorance.
Keep the truth coming, Coach Anna

I would actually love to see more done on isolated plant forms of saturated fat vs. isolated animal sources of saturated fat. I don’t suspect that the isolated forms of plant based saturated fats are healthy, but I suspect they do act differently to some degree if even by a hair.

The whole topic of saturated, polyunsaturated, monosaturated, even trans fats is based on bonds, which are categories that folks like Keys used back when to try to find a health relationship with their consumption. The literature is filled with such categories.
Only this is mistaken.
Dietary fats are combinations of these mistaken categories – none completely one or another, and BTW lard is mostly monosaturated – yet one would not know this based on so much disparagement and bias…such as here.

Fats contain fat soluble nutrients!
They are important!
This is missed by most.
Especially vitamin K2, high in FERMENTED dairy (consumed by healthy cultures), and organ meats and all the foods you disparage.
Further, lots of K1 can be made into K2 as MK-4 by a process also missed by many.
It happens thus:
Dietary K of ALL forms are cleaved in the small intestine, converted into vitamin K3, menadione, carried via the lymph system to bodywide tissues where the enzyme UBIAD1 converts K3 into MK-4.
This enzyme also controls cholesterol and calcium.
Many things mess this complex process up and include drugs (OTC and Rx), trans fats (because hydrogenation messes with K1 to make dihydrophylloquinone which screws up calcium and cholesterol), and more.

A CAC of zero confers a 15 year warranty from death by all causes.
It represents true K repletion.
K repletion is MUCH more than coagulation.
Vegans miss K2 (mostly, unless they ferment) and rely on only K1. This is NOT how Blue Zones eat! They eat K2!

In short, wrong questions, wrong categories, missing huge benefits of dietary K2 and missing pathways and processes that are essential.

It is not about saturation… it’s about nutrients.
Lots of K1 can almost meet needs, but not if statins, hydrogenated oils, warfarin are used.
Bias and upstream mistakes are now the norm and prevent understanding what we need to eat to optimize health.
Eat the butter and shun ALL the novel ‘vegetable oils!’

So, pretty much nothing… Filling up on butter is an easy way to become borderline deficient in the nutrients 97% of humans currently lack such as folate, potassium, fiber, etc.

I went over the CAC studies you hint at, as well as the vitamin K specific literature;

As for your claims about K2 being necessary over K1, I don’t see the evidence pointing in that direction. Even the 2015 Review “The Helath Benefits of Vitamin K” only cites 2 articles that hint a potential need for K2 over K1, and one of these citations end up concluding that K2 is not properly demonstrated to be essential when K1 levels are suffiecient:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23590754 :
“There are significant gaps in the current knowledge on menaquinones[K2] based on the criteria for setting DRV. Therefore, we conclude that further investigations are needed to establish how differences among the vitamin K forms may influence tissue specificities and their role in human health. However, there is merit for considering both menaquinones and phylloquinone when developing future recommendations for vitamin K intake.”

The other one is the dutch study, and seems to be the root cause of the misinformation on K2. It is total BS (pardon my ducth). Why? It is completely based on survey data. Give me a break, Vitamin K2 is necessary over K1 because some dutch people listed foods that are higher in K2 on a “checklist”? lmao… In addition to this, it does not mention funding or conflicts of interest:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15514282 :
“Assessment of diet and vitamin K intake. The participants
indicated on a checklist all foods and beverages that they consumed
more than once a month during the preceding year. The completed
checklist formed the basis for an interview at the study center by a
trained dietician. A validated, semiquantitative food-frequency questionnaire was used (12). Intake of total energy, alcohol, macronutrients, and a large number of micronutrients was computed using Dutch
food composition tables (13).
Concentrations of phylloquinone and menaquinone (MK-4
through MK-10) in a large series of Dutch foods were assessed”
…If I do say so, the dutch study is ‘Dutch ado about nothin’

As far as CAC goes, yes it seems that calcification plays big a role in mortality for people who die of CVD. But, we plant based people have known this for years.

“Additional clinical studies are required to determine the optimal methods for reporting CAD measures of stenosis or atherosclerosis, as well as to determine their prognostic implications and optimal approaches to therapy.”

This 15-year warranty period you mention is not correlated with vitamin K in the study you cite (you didn’t use quotations properly, I might add)

All this K2 stuff seems like a clear cut case of reductionist thinking. The K2 boosters claim that the sat. fat studies are myopic, but then they become the ultimate in narrow mindedness by rationalizing that K2 is some fabulous and important reason to feast on the flesh/ titty juice of fellow animals. If K2 is so important to you, get it in a sub-lingual pill/powder please because no one wants to have to put up with your destructive behavior. A true scientist will find a way to be healthy without burdening the rest of us through animal agriculture. K2 and butter are not synonyms, so telling people to swallow butter is making you seem like a shill for the dairy industry, or possibly grasping at K2 straws to justify your own cruel butter-eating practices.

Don’t get me wrong, I think it is important to bring up these issues so that good scientists can broaden their horizons even further, but you’d better have a decent argument for your miracle nutrient other than ‘most blue zones eat decaying flesh/secretions’ if you want us to take you seriously. I want to see randomized controlled trials with K2 (and not just the current prelims on K2 and bone fracture in the elderly) if I am going to get interested in spending my energy on this one.

As of 2015, Cochrane suggested that K2 supplementation has not been adequately demonstrated to improve health parameters, and that more data is necessary, but that supplementing K2 (not butter) is the reasonable way to find out if it will help:

Butter is almost entirely fat most of which is saturated fat. Replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats found in vegetable oils reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease. That is what the evidence shows:

‘Dietary saturated fat, like any macronutrient, supplies energy (calories) to the diet. In randomized clinical trials on saturated fat, the group that is assigned a diet lower in saturated fat is taught how to replace it with foods higher in ≥1 other macronutrients, typically carbohydrates or unsaturated fats, to maintain the same total energy intake. Other trials, often called controlled feeding trials, actually provide to the research participants their assigned diet high or low in saturated fat balanced with a similar amount of energy from another macronutrient. Essential to the interpretation of the results from these trials (and the reason for the divergent results in meta-analyses noted above) is the macronutrient composition of the comparator diet. Clinical trials that used polyunsaturated fat to replace saturated fat reduced the incidence of CVD.9,10 In contrast, trials that used mainly carbohydrates to replace saturated fat did not reduce CVD. However, the types of carbohydrate-containing foods were often unspecified and typically included sugar and other refined carbohydrates to maintain energy balance. Evidence from prospective observational studies indicates that carbohydrates from whole grains reduce CVD when they replace saturated fat.18

Prospective observational studies, also called cohort studies, are conducted in large populations in which dietary intake is assessed at the beginning of the study and in some studies reassessed repeatedly during the follow-up periods, and CVD is assessed at various points during follow-up. In prospective observational studies, the participants eat whatever diet they themselves choose, and the researchers request that participants report their recent or past dietary history. Research participants in observational studies who eat a large amount of saturated fat eat less of various other macronutrients, usually carbohydrates, unsaturated fat, or both, to maintain energy intake. Participants who eat a comparatively small amount of saturated fat eat more carbohydrates or unsaturated fats. Because carbohydrates and unsaturated fats differ in their metabolic effects, it is necessary to evaluate the effects of low and high saturated fat intakes in the context of the replacement macronutrient. This is easier in a clinical trial because the trial controls the dietary intake but more complicated in observational studies in which the participants control their own diets.

Meta-analyses of prospective observational studies aiming to determine the effects on CVD of saturated fat that did not take into consideration the replacement macronutrient have mistakenly concluded that there was no significant effect of saturated fat intake on CVD risk.15,16 In contrast, meta-analyses that specifically evaluated the effect of replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat found significant benefit, whereas replacing saturated fat with carbohydrates, especially refined carbohydrates, yielded no significant benefit to CVD risk.12,17,18 Thus, again, differences in the effects of the replacement or comparator nutrients, specifically carbohydrates and unsaturated fats, are at the root of the apparent discrepancies among studies and meta-analyses on whether lowering saturated fat reduces the risk of developing CVD. In fact, the evidence to recommend reduction of saturated fat and its replacement by polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat has strengthened as better methodology is more widely adopted for the analysis of dietary intake in observational studies.

We judge the evidence to favor recommending n-6 polyunsaturated fat, that is, linoleic acid, stronger than monounsaturated fat to replace saturated fat because of the positive results of randomized clinical trials that used polyunsaturated fat compared with the paucity of trials that used monounsaturated fat10; the greater relative risk reduction for polyunsaturated fats in observational studies12,17,18; the greater reduction in LDL cholesterol with polyunsaturated fat4; and the regression of atherosclerosis in nonhuman primates by polyunsaturated but not monounsaturated fat.5 However, progress in reducing CVD would be enhanced by replacing saturated fat by either type of unsaturated fat.’https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510

This is why a Harvard study found that

‘What did predict risk of cardiovascular disease was “fat swapping.” When dairy fat was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively. Furthermore, replacing the same number of calories from dairy fat with healthful carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease.”https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/

In other words, ditch the butter and the oils – stick with whole grains (and other whole plant foods).

Are you familiar with the detailed analyses that Dr Zoe Harcombe has undertaken examining saturated fat RCTs? If not much of her work is available on the Internet and easily accessible.

Her conclusion is that saturated fat is no more dangerous than unsaturated or mono saturated fat. She analyzes in detail each of the relevant studies and critiques their strengths and weaknesses. While I am not a statistician I find her work to be convincing – certainly more convincing than quoting the summaries of one or two studies that appear to disfavor saturated fats.

She has been an apologist for saturated fat for many years. In fact she makes her living selling low carb diet books and diet plans. Her arguments are based on omitting mention of the bulk of the evidence and misinterpreting the rest.

You are also misinterpreting the studies posted here. it’s not just one or two studies as you would be aware if you had read those reports. No credible health authority anywhere in the world argues that saturated fat is harmless let alone healthy. If you would rather believe people selling sensational books, products and services that appeal to people looking to justify their bad dietary habits, and people associated with the meat and dairy industries, (or the Atkins Diet empire) rather than detailed reports by panels of respected scientists, that’s your business. However, most people will choose to go with what the science shows rather than with the claims of internet entrepeneurs and the minority of academics who deny the evidence.

If you think that the claims of the likes of Harcombe actually trump the considered conclusions of panels of expert scientiss from around the world who have analysed all the evidence, then that is up to you. But you are closing your eyes to the totality of the evidence.

Fumbling Tom, what do you really think? Who (here) actually reads all that boring crap? Must we read it to eat healthy? Can’t you write a “conclusion” stating you views? Or at least the position concluded by your rhetoric!

People aren’t interested in my views. Even I’m not interested in my views. I’m not interested in Dr Greger’s views either.

I am interested in what the evidence shows though and I offer my analysis of that evidence together with the source documents so that people can review the sources for themselves and critically assess my analysis. That’s what Dr Greger does too and it’s why I believe that his videos and blog posts are so useful.

However those documents and reports I cite discuss the evidence in considerably more detail than Dr G and NF does and certainly much, much more than I do. I find them wonderfully interesting and informative. Perhaps other people do too.

The world is full of opinionated individuals trying to force their opinions down other people’s throats. I’d rather review evidence-based arguments than listen to opinions based on personal beliefs, falllacies, weird and wonderful analogies and other specious reasoning. Present company excepted naturally.

LOL, Fumbling Tom, you preformed as predicted…both praising Dr. McDougall but rejecting his work, as though your regurgitation of someone else’s work clarifies. Still, you haven’t stated what is “evidence”. If Dr. McDougall’s work isn’t credible, what is (to you.) And you are on record rejecting McDougall’s work both his take on research and his own research. Why is your second opinion better than his original work? So, Fumbling Tom, now that you have all that pent up hostility vented, again, please clarify the hoops I’ll need ump through to share material worthy of your superior eyes? I think you can do that. The question is, will you? If you are successful I may give you some more writing pointers. I think I can help you, Fumbling Tom.

Fumbling Tom, “the evidence” shows you are limited to cut n paste stories, articles, and “cohort studies” all limited in scope. Agreed, you lack creativity and original thinking so I accept you might think olks aren’t interested in what’s in your brain. Still, cut n paste is not a good career move. Yesterday, “national news” announced, “Almost 50% of Americans have heart disease.” This AM another national news show stated, “Heart disease continues to be the number one killer of women in spite of 80% of heart disease being avoidable.” Fumbling Tom, can you find a good cut n paste covering those two no-brainers. Is it possible Americans are not eating enough meat & dairy? Could butter be the secret weapon to end heart disease? This is your big chance, Fumbling Tom. If you dare, I would certainly be interested in your personal thoughts on this subject. And if you ask other readers, I bet they’d tell you the same thing. Fumbling Tom, perhaps you are just being modest declaring you are so empty-headed you’ve nothing to contribute. Go on, give it a try.

Fumbling Tom, you say you want to “review evidence based science,” but you go into hiding the moment I expose your source as bias and limited in scope. You don’t really “review” you cut n paste to get a sense of relevance. What’s your favorite meat? I’ve always wondered, Fumbling Tom, since you are a carnivore why hang out on a vegan website & message board? Is this your idea of “fair & balanced?” Dr. Greger does all the work and you chip away at his product. Does that give you a warm fuzzy feeling? Maybe a tingle runs down your leg? What’s the psychological payoff, Fumbling Tom?

I read through much of the science. After a while, it gets easier. Personally, I don’t like going through life confused about what the science says, so I spend plenty of time regularly educating myself. I could never have done it without Dr. Greger, or at least it would have taken too long and been boring..

For people who need help now, but can’t spend so much time reading / deciphering the corruption, please do what Dr. Greger, and myself did. Start with Dr. McDougall. This simple slideshow can bring you up to speed in just 10 minutes.

He doesn’t get long winded with the literature the way I like to do, but he gives it to ya straight in a fun and easy format.

Honestly, I probably never would have changed my diet if it were not for Dr. McDougall. My family would still be repeating the same cycle of life-long destructive habits, and complaining of chronic pain. I think many if not most of us sort of owe Dr. John McDougall a big thank you for being a key player in saving our lives when we couldn’t tell right from wrong.

I’m also very grateful that he is still offering this simple and easy method to all of us, as he has done throughout the decades.

Gokyu’/Mike, thanks for the comments. I’ve followed Dr. McDougall for over 30 years. Up until his recent retirement I emailed him occasionally and he always replied. My message here is for Fumbling Tom to stop giving anti- vegan dribble he passes of as the authorative word. He’s a joke!

Butter is almost entirely fat most of which is saturated fat. Replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats found in vegetable oils reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease. That is what the evidence shows:

‘Dietary saturated fat, like any macronutrient, supplies energy (calories) to the diet. In randomized clinical trials on saturated fat, the group that is assigned a diet lower in saturated fat is taught how to replace it with foods higher in ≥1 other macronutrients, typically carbohydrates or unsaturated fats, to maintain the same total energy intake. Other trials, often called controlled feeding trials, actually provide to the research participants their assigned diet high or low in saturated fat balanced with a similar amount of energy from another macronutrient. Essential to the interpretation of the results from these trials (and the reason for the divergent results in meta-analyses noted above) is the macronutrient composition of the comparator diet. Clinical trials that used polyunsaturated fat to replace saturated fat reduced the incidence of CVD.9,10 In contrast, trials that used mainly carbohydrates to replace saturated fat did not reduce CVD. However, the types of carbohydrate-containing foods were often unspecified and typically included sugar and other refined carbohydrates to maintain energy balance. Evidence from prospective observational studies indicates that carbohydrates from whole grains reduce CVD when they replace saturated fat.18

Prospective observational studies, also called cohort studies, are conducted in large populations in which dietary intake is assessed at the beginning of the study and in some studies reassessed repeatedly during the follow-up periods, and CVD is assessed at various points during follow-up. In prospective observational studies, the participants eat whatever diet they themselves choose, and the researchers request that participants report their recent or past dietary history. Research participants in observational studies who eat a large amount of saturated fat eat less of various other macronutrients, usually carbohydrates, unsaturated fat, or both, to maintain energy intake. Participants who eat a comparatively small amount of saturated fat eat more carbohydrates or unsaturated fats. Because carbohydrates and unsaturated fats differ in their metabolic effects, it is necessary to evaluate the effects of low and high saturated fat intakes in the context of the replacement macronutrient. This is easier in a clinical trial because the trial controls the dietary intake but more complicated in observational studies in which the participants control their own diets.

Meta-analyses of prospective observational studies aiming to determine the effects on CVD of saturated fat that did not take into consideration the replacement macronutrient have mistakenly concluded that there was no significant effect of saturated fat intake on CVD risk.15,16 In contrast, meta-analyses that specifically evaluated the effect of replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat found significant benefit, whereas replacing saturated fat with carbohydrates, especially refined carbohydrates, yielded no significant benefit to CVD risk.12,17,18 Thus, again, differences in the effects of the replacement or comparator nutrients, specifically carbohydrates and unsaturated fats, are at the root of the apparent discrepancies among studies and meta-analyses on whether lowering saturated fat reduces the risk of developing CVD. In fact, the evidence to recommend reduction of saturated fat and its replacement by polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat has strengthened as better methodology is more widely adopted for the analysis of dietary intake in observational studies.

We judge the evidence to favor recommending n-6 polyunsaturated fat, that is, linoleic acid, stronger than monounsaturated fat to replace saturated fat because of the positive results of randomized clinical trials that used polyunsaturated fat compared with the paucity of trials that used monounsaturated fat10; the greater relative risk reduction for polyunsaturated fats in observational studies12,17,18; the greater reduction in LDL cholesterol with polyunsaturated fat4; and the regression of atherosclerosis in nonhuman primates by polyunsaturated but not monounsaturated fat.5 However, progress in reducing CVD would be enhanced by replacing saturated fat by either type of unsaturated fat.’https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510

This is why a Harvard study found that

‘What did predict risk of cardiovascular disease was “fat swapping.” When dairy fat was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively. Furthermore, replacing the same number of calories from dairy fat with healthful carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease.”https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/

In other words, ditch the butter and the oils. it’s probably safer to stick with whole grains (and other whole plant foods).

Congrats, Fumbling Tom, you really have readers here fooled. I’m truly surprised. You’ve done an excellent job hijacking Dr. Greger’s message board and his message. You write so much in defense of oils…butter…whatever you are pushing. I can better understand why Gopher wants me gone. This is the Fumbling Tom message board. The meat & dairy struggle will end on a positive note, even without my effort. It’s not sustainable. All that butter churning is destroying our land mass and if there’s one thing I’ve learned about government is after trying everything else, and there’s no other choice, it’s a fifty-fifty chance politician s will do the right thing. If so, just before the brink of destruction, meat & dairy will no longer be an option and billionaires won’t control mankind. Until then (in the short term) it’s good you are right here plugging butter and other fats, where Dr. Greger can experience how meat & dairy propagators infest message boards and the minds of readers, even self-proclaimed “vegans.”

You saw right through my ‘In other words, ditch the butter and the oils. it’s probably safer to stick with whole grains (and other whole plant foods)’ statement to realise that I am actually plugging butter and other fats. You obviously have a mind like a steel trap.

And I am not a vegan. Most vegan diets are unhealthy as Dr Greger has man times pointed out.

Fumbling Tom you weaken, not strengthen your opinion by piling on your claim of what Dr. Greger might have said about “most vegans.” My definition is not limited to your convenient use of the word. I was very clear on the term “vegan.” The term is used so loosely I’m cautious to pre-define terms. You, on the other hand, prefer to hide behind its ambiguity. That’s cowardly. And the precise definition I shared can’t possibly be rejected by any knowledgeable doctor you attempt to increase your credibility with. Of course we all have examples of “fat vegans,” for example, just as I’ve scoffed at emaciated vegans. It’s telling you reject his and McDougall’s…and others’ take on third-party research but you cite Dr. Greger IMMEDIATELY to shore up your personal view of what a “vegan” is. Your take on nutrition is slight-of hand and dodge ball, by your rules. Your behavior suggests a touch f neurosis. Ever been diagnosed?

I agree with what you are saying, but please don’t stoop to the level of the corrupt mental-health system. Don’t start threatening the guy with the words, “Ever been diagnosed?” I don’t think most people will really comprehend the brutal lifetime of torture that these forced antipsychotic drugs will cause a person once a diagnosis is made. For most, there is no escape once the prescription is ordered. Pain, confusion, fear until death. Haldol, Risperidone, Seroquel, atypical, typical, it doesn’t matter because all of them are overwhelmingly destructive to the brain and body. What’s more,perhaps worse, they kill the spirit. If the dose is sufficient, all hope of relief is gone, and suicide is the only reasonable wish. Not that it will be granted; all freedoms will be completely removed through sedation/ dulling of mentation. Free will is completely removed.

Slider, your voice is appreciated to the highest level by me, and you have already inspired me to be more vocal about ending this cruel animal torture / slave diet system. But, until this world completely ends forced chemical drugging for all beings, I must object to these implications of mental instability in all scenarios. The powers which pervert these shills are the greater evil, and they likely will recruit more shills when this one has been taken out. It isn’t a sustainable solution.

Fumbling Tom, “..probably stick with whole grains” (instead of butter)? How dumb is “probably?” What “probably”? There’s no “probably”…Whole grains and whole-plant greens & veggies and some fruit is infinitely (not “probably”) better than your butter or oil or meat. I course you reject that waiting for “evidence” (you said.) Except you are a little slow stating what your wisdom accepts as “evidence.” With you appointing yourself the judge and jury your best conclusion is “it’s probably better to eat “A” instead of “B”, but there’s no certainty…as you are still waiting for the “evidence.” How long have you dodged responsibility for your silly views by claiming YOU don’t see the “evidence”? A clown school dropout would question your motive. I hope you can define “evidence”. You think about it, Fumbling Tom while I hit the gym. Please don’t try to hide from me.

There is no room for “probably” when children are being given buttered eggs at breakfast, deli meat/cheese sandwich at lunch, and for dinner it’s buttermilk biscuits with a pat of butter. Don’t forget the butter cookies and ice cream for desert. This isn’t a small problem. There is no question this is cruel. How many more poor children are going to live in misery because you had to add in “probably”? Even one is too many.

Find your heart center, and stop this half-hearted cruelty Fumbleman. Homicide through inaction (or in this case ambiguity) is still homicide. The good Samaritan is your duty bro.

Fumbling Tom, don’t rush, I know you can’t cope and pressure builds. Please consult with your boss and see how she wants to word “your” answer. I’ll continue to wait patiently while you recognize your version of “evidence” (again, your words.) Also, I suggest you review my comments on what a “vegan” is. And my comments covering the different types of eaters who loosely use the term “vegan” describing their eating habits. My experience is all players must understand the technical terms before true communications can occur. I’d get frustrated jumping from one angle of your “thought” to another as you slip and slide trying to escape by right hand and it’s sanitized runner glove closing in on your face. Do your homework.

Thanks, yes. I try to eat a completely whole plant food diet and I don’t identify as a vegan. ‘Vegan’ is a lifestyle choice not a dietary strategy although the two seem to be completely confused in popular usage.

i do occasionally eat ice cream when my spirit is weak (I’m not defending doing so) so I am far from perfect. Also I’ve noticed that the 100% wholewheat bread where i live actually contains small amounts of eggs and dairy. Where else are these things hidden?

That said the evidence shows that a whole food plant-based diet is the healthiest – it doesn’t show that a whole food exclusively plant diet is the healthiest. Both Campbell and Greger, though, say that health benefits increase as animal foods (and processed plant foods) are removed from the diet and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that they are maximised when animal food consumption is reduced to zero. But ‘reasonable’ is not evidence and they are careful not to say that the evidence shows that. Kudos to them for their honesty.

Fumbling Tom, what is your favorite breakfast meat? Is bacon better with fried eggs than ham? I bet you read your cut n paste stories about butter while you eat to get courage before each bite.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Fumbling Tom, are you and Mother watching the Super Bowl, Sunday? Your new 26-inch big screen is installed in your bedroom and you can almost smell your favorite popcorn as she coats it with sprinkles. And she even cleans the crumbs out of your waterbed afterwards. I’m excited for you, Fumbling Tom. Are you rooting for anyone named “Tom?” I hope it’s not a case of “Fumbling Tom.”

YR, I don’t think you read Fumbling Tom any better than you read your hubby. Maybe he just hates “dancing” with YOU?
And you struggle to understand me. It’s a common thread in your character, you can’t read men. A guy says he wants to marry you for the weekend and you pick out a wedding dress.

It’s possible you haven’t followed the exchange. Fumbling Tom is consulting with his boss to see how he feels aobut all the different definition of of “vegan” he throws around. And he’s perplexed, first denying Dr. Greger as an authority on nutrition, but then citing Dr. Greger to make a point. In fact, he invited me to enter into this discussion. Please pay attention, YR. The question is, why do you butt in? You may see him as helpless and needing your intervention but if a supportive woman is his prescription he might want to move away from Mother.

Fumbling Tom, here’s a great 32 page report, “Food Planet Health” https://eatforum.org/content/uploads/2019/01/EAT-Lancet_Commission_Summary_Report.pdf it’s too long for you to cut n paste, but if you actually read it the knowledge it might enlighten. One caveat, it was forwarded by Dr. McDougall. It’s going out all over the world in several languages. I hope the reader notices the food pie chart. It shows both meat & plants for “protein” the meat slice is MUCH smaller. The reaction to that will be interesting. Enjoy.

Fumbling Tom, here’s the opening line of the 32-page report I linked for you: “Food is the single strongest lever to optimize human health and environmental sustainability on Earth. However, food is currently threatening both people and planet.” Aren’t those words great? And we don’t need a degree biochemistry to get the message. I hope you enjoy.

Fumbling Tom, I reread your cut n paste definition of what a “cohort study” is. I’m almost conflicted trying to find consistency in you “evidence” verses your words. How does this cut n paste definition, you’ve so kindly lifted for us support the validity of your also cut n pasted “study?” Do you hope pasting them together lets one magically “authenticate” the other. Frankly, Fumbling Tom, I suspect most seasoned connoisseurs of science are aware “studies” are churned out in volume every year, funded by the meat & dairy, and drug, even medical interests with the sole purpose of creating “headlines” to support a product or service they want to exploit for profit. And, heaven forbit, if the paid fir “study” doesn’t provide the positive result the corporation wants, the “researcher” loses her funding. Hoe fair (or honest) is that, Fumbling Tom?

You draw much of your cut n paste material (nice job) from “NCBI.” Have you considered NCBI is a repository for “everyone” with a scrap of paper to publish? I mean, whatever cut n paste angle you choose lift for it’s persuasion impact, there is an equal, but opposite paper conflicting with your bias sharing. Unlike you, Fumbling Tom, Dr Greger, and his staff, salaried and volunteers, are funded so read/review “all” the published research each year. Think about it, Fumbling Tom, Dr. Greger is privy to both sides…to “all” sides, not just you select cut n paste sampling. So, I guess the reader’s choice is answered by this one simple question, “Do you choose to be well informed, or misinformed?” Or worse, have your head stuck where the Sun doesn’t shine, like Fumbling Tom.

I can envision the gorillas of the world sitting around enjoying life and chewing on their leafie green veggies, watching us human primates making fools out of ourselves arguing over which is better to eat, extracted animal fats or extracted plant oils and fats.

Those gorillas are probably wondering to themselves “Don’t those stupid human primates know that we primates are supposed to eat whole plant foods? How did those humans ever get side tracked into thinking a Lion’s diet is the proper way for a primate to eat? And their crazy idea of eating the mammary secretions of a cow, especially when they are adults, is beyond belief! Those humans claim they are so much smarter than us apes, but I’m beginning to think it’s the other way around “

The fact that we have seen sweethearted gorillas who have been so sensitive with their petS.

Michael communicating about his mother being killed still devastates me! He is a sensitive one. His art deeply affects me. Apple the dog is one that blew me away. His self-portrait was so sophisticated.

I also watched a man who walked with….. Some sort of hunting and hunted animal…. Boy, I can’t remember which animal, but he saved ones life against the rules because they are an endangered species and what I remember was that after that animal grew up and had lost her family, he came back and the animal came and snuggled with him. Genuine love was so obvious.

They are just like us. Emotionally, they grieve and love just like we do.

Marketing isn’t done by lions. It’s create don Madison Avenue and the big money is in meat & dairy. We unwittingly migrated from wanderer/gatherers to agriculture, to laborers for the industrial revolution. That morphing has created dependent beings unable to plant seeds. Unfortunately, our digestive systems have not evolved as quickly as our addiction to fast food and all things processed.

If it sounds unbelievable, it probably is unbelievable. This sounds like super-hype to attract investors.
———————————————————————————————————————————–
Don’t know if you will see the irony in this, but when I went to the link you posted a pop-up covered the screen asking for donations! ‘-) ‘-) ‘-)

But like Slider, I view your statements as opinion. If you don’t understand the possibilities then I can see how you are incapable of seeing disruption.

Now it’s my time to offer an opinion. If you think this will be disruptive… you ain’t seen nothin’ yet! I think the times we live in will be known in future as The Age of Disruption.

Loni, that’s another marketing ploy to keep folks off balance. Since a “cure” is around the corner it’s safe to eat two triple bypass bacon burgers for lunch. We’re still being reminded flying cars are in the horizon. They have been for the last 60 years. The headline draws eyeballs which is the name of the game in advertising. I wouldn’t place my bet a cures using drugs. So far, drugs have deadly side effects and cure nothing.

Healthy skepticism is a good thing and yours appears healthy enough although the things you reference (flying cars) and this being advertising doesn’t offer much more than your gut feeling that this will fail.

As for placing my bet on this “cure?” Well, I would if I could have found a way to invest. However, it is a closed shop so-to-speak meaning they had to go to Israeli venture capital to get funding for their research.

They couldn’t get funding either from the American govt. or the Israeli govt. as they were too cautious in their funding guidelines. Like you they didn’t believe in “moonshots” as Peter Diamandis fondly refers to these types of Science.

I’m not privy to the details but if I were I still doubt I’d get the sense you have. Too many unknowns sabotage the best of intensions. Researchers are optimistic. More often it’s a scam to raise money. Lucky for you it’s not open to the public, otherwise you’d be “investing” in headlines, not science. If you share a link Ill catch up.

Lonie, from the article I linked to: “Not specifically referencing Aridor or AEBi, but you can see how easy it is for a company do a little research to find some cutting-edge technology that the public is not generally familiar with, and then wrap some extreme claims around that technology, promising some new product or treatment. You can even cite the published research to apparently support your claims. It all sounds like cutting edge technology, but it is a Potemkin village. It is a clever type of pseudoscience that can be very effective. It takes a high degree of specific scientific knowledge, and perhaps even the ability to search and understand the technical literature, to see through the deception.” https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-an-israeli-company-about-to-cure-cancer/

I worked in the biotech industry, I’m very familiar with super-hyping to attract investors. Many of whom are so amazingly gullible that they don’t do their due diligence, assuming that because they are wealthy and successful, they know more than anybody. So, they get soaked. I have no sympathy for them. I do have sympathy for smaller investors, but they should be extremely cautious with their limited resources.

And, I’ve been diagnosed with cancer. Would I like this to be true? Sure. But I don’t think it is.

The article mentioned Theranos. Now there was a big scam. But clearly obvious to many. I looked at the patent applications, and laughed. And wondered how so many folks could be so easily snookered. Well, I have several theories. But zero sympathy for any of them. Hire experts to evaluate technology (and the company, market, etc) before investing in it.

I worked in the biotech industry, I’m very familiar with super-hyping to attract investors.
———————————————————————————————————————-
But that’s just the point… they have all the funding they need. Sure, maybe they go public someday but not until their methods are proven.

This reminds me of another cutting edge company, Red Digital Cinema. The founder, Jim Jannard (of Oakley fame) said he was going to build a 4k digital cinema camera that was affordable. He asked us to put down a $500 deposit that was completely refundable if we changed our minds and wanted out. Some did after a year or two of waiting while he figured it out and built the camera that revolutionized the Digital Cinema world by making it affordable to individuals and thus opened up content creation at a high level to the world instead of just Hollywood.

Like the Paul Newman character in the movie Cool Hand Luke, he made a bold statement he could eat x-amount of hard boiled eggs, having never done so before, and then backed it up.

Like the ones of us who kept the faith in the camera maker and benefited from doing so… and the backers of the egg eater Luke who won their bets, sometimes the ones with the faith are right.

Lonie, making a camera is a lot simpler than curing cancer. Even putting a man on the moon was easier. Basic engineering. Biological systems are a lot more complex.

Do you recall breast cancer patients suing their insurance companies, because these companies wouldn’t pay for stem cell transplants, on the grounds that these treatments were experimental? As I recall, these patients won. And, as it turns out, the therapy not only didn’t work, but it proved deadly for a number of patients. This is only one example of many.

It’s not a matter of faith, but a matter of science. But I also think that prevention is key; that’s why I find the information presented by this website so intriguing. We may not know the exact mechanism by which a plant based whole foods diet appears to reduce cancer, but the data are persuasive. Which is in line with several other medical advances. For example, tuberculosis was already on the decline, due to improved sanitation, before it was discovered what caused it. But eventually we did discover what caused it, and how to treat it.

I hope you were able to read the article. I don’t know why you saw requests for donations; I don’t. You can access it at sciencebasedmedicine.org.

Even putting a man on the moon was easier. Basic engineering. Biological systems are a lot more complex.
—————————————————————————————————–
Tell that to the crew of Apollo 13. ‘-)

Oh By The Way… It took 8 years for the U.S. to make its first moon landing.
__________________________________________________________________
Do you recall breast cancer patients suing their insurance companies, because these companies wouldn’t pay for stem cell transplants, on the grounds that these treatments were experimental? As I recall, these patients won. And, as it turns out, the therapy not only didn’t work, but it proved deadly for a number of patients. This is only one example of many.
————————————————————————————————-
Not familiar with this incident but AFAIK, it has no bearing on the Israeli company’s work. The Present is the dividing line between the Past and the Future. And as someone suggested, anyone who remembers the Past is Not Doomed to Repeat It.

Any past missteps are merely building blocks of the Knowledge Base.
________________________________________________________
It’s not a matter of faith, but a matter of science.
———————————————————————
Here is where I must strongly disagree with you. Using one of those examples from the Past you like to hearken back to, what if Edison didn’t have faith he could finally solve the light bulb?

In my mind at least, perseverance requires a great deal of faith. And what about Nikola Tesla? If J.P. Morgan hadn’t had faith in his work, where would he have gotten the backing he received?

Lonie, “The new development was picked up by numerous media publications in Israel and across the world. Meanwhile, AEBi offered no evidence of its findings and claimed not to have the funds to publish any in peer-reviewed scientific journals.” (http://nocamels.com/2019/01/israeli-scientists-cancer-cure-claim-criticism/) So no, they don’t have all the funding they need. It looks like the only place they’ve published their research is in public media. And btw, legitimate scientific peer reviewed journals do not charge to publish scientific research articles.

“Dr. Leonard Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the national office of the American Cancer Society, noted on Tuesday that while the Israeli scientists had worked “with an interesting approach to interfering with the ability of cancer cells to function,” their research has “apparently not been published in the scientific literature where it would be subject to review, support and/or criticism from knowledgeable peers.”” (http://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-claiming-cancer-cure-say-they-cant-afford-to-publish-findings/)

Also: “The company is now in the process of patenting the concept, he said. Funding to date has come from private investors.” (ditto) Very odd. Patent applications DO cost a lot of money. And they are no proof that the invention actually works as claimed. But they are very useful for securing investment funding.

Dr. Leonard Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the national office of the American Cancer Society, noted on Tuesday that while the Israeli scientists had worked “with an interesting approach to interfering with the ability of cancer cells to function,” their research has “apparently not been published in the scientific literature where it would be subject to review, support and/or criticism from knowledgeable peers.”” (http://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-claiming-cancer-cure-say-they-cant-afford-to-publish-findings/)

Also: “The company is now in the process of patenting the concept, he said. Funding to date has come from private investors.” (ditto) Very odd. Patent applications DO cost a lot of money. And they are no proof that the invention actually works as claimed. But they are very useful for securing investment funding.
———————————————————————————————————————–
Dr. Leonard Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the national office of the American Cancer Society, noted on Tuesday that while the Israeli scientists had worked “with an interesting approach to interfering with the ability of cancer cells to function,”

The above statement is the most telling one in your post. To have such a high member of the American Cancer Society call the research an interesting approach is high praise from someone not in the inner circle of the Israeli Company.

And the “their research has “apparently not been published in the scientific literature where it would be subject to review, support and/or criticism from knowledgeable peers.”” is a red herring.

Of course they aren’t going to publish yet as they haven’t secured their patent and they aren’t even done tweaking the process. No worries… these are early days. When they have the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed they will publish.

Or maybe they won’t as they see the act of publishing in Journals as nothing more than an exercise for participating in the “Publishing Game”… akin to the flawed govt. “Funding Game.”

If they cure cancer, they do’an need no stinking medical journal confirmation. They’ll be as famous as Watson and Crick.

I’ve bought a lot of speculative stocks. I would not touch this one. As I predicted, you’d be investing in a headline, this one: ”Israeli Scientists Claim They’re On The Path To A Cure For Cancer.” It’s created to attract speculators. What if the headline were: ” Israeli Scientists Claim They Talked to Spacemen From another Solar System?” They can claim this or that and not be prosecuted for fraud. They clearly know their limit. I’ve read the articles (thanks) but there’s nothing of substance there. I hope you follow this and watch as they move their dates and promises back. Even honest researchers suffer from optimism causing them to project too-short lead times.

As a side note, what’s interesting is we already have a way to avoid most cancers, heat disease, and diabetes. A starch-based diet. But the business world turns a deaf ear…getting excited only over drugs they can patent and use to ransom for saving lives. What a sad commentary on society, and government.

I hope you follow this and watch as they move their dates and promises back. Even honest researchers suffer from optimism causing them to project too-short lead times.
——————————————————————————————-
Foxtrot-uniform-charlie-kilo the lead times. That’s not the news here. If it takes them 5 years to achieve victory of all types of cancer… THAT’S A WIN!

No one in their right mind would abandon healthful best-practices based on an unproven procedure.

For that matter, even if their procedure is wildly successful that is only one disease conquered. I will not open myself up to becoming unhealthy just because there is likely a cure for some illness I may get.

If someone comes up with a proven prevention I may adopt that. But I’m just happy for all those who contract cancer when this new procedure becomes mainstream will have a way back to wellness.

Lonie, you use vague terms (for me) How do you keep yourself “healthy,” for example? Some folks see themselves as “healthy” but simply have not been diagnosed yet. To what do you attribute your excellent health?

To what do you attribute your excellent health?
——————————————————————————
Whew! those 39 characters would require probably 10,000 words to answer and I’ve probably posted about 5,000 of those words here in different video discussions.

But to save time and effort, let me just say that I try to keep up with the latest health research… especially regarding supplementation and new holistic procedures. I don’t like to name them because to me these things are a moving target. I may try them for a while and if I do not feel I am getting the expected results, I’ll drop them.

I will give you a couple of procedures I’ve gone through and my estimation of the results.

One was done almost 2 years ago and involved having a transfusion of 7 units (pints) of young person’s plasma.

Briefly, let me explain… We have proteins running through our system that instruct our ever-present stem cells (yes, even as we age we still have some stem cells) which organs to go to in order to tweak them or outright repair them. About the age of 35 these proteins drastically reduce their ability to produce the required instructions. By re-introducing these proteins in a younger version via the young (from a 16 to 26 YO person) plasma, we get the instruction function back in operation.

My personal assessment was that I clearly gained benefit (especially in my heightened ability to think) from this procedure.

My second procedure was the infusion of 2 cc’s of cord blood. I went ahead with this procedure after reading that a researcher at Stanford and connected with the VA named Wyss-Corey (I may have the two names transposed) did the same plasma experiment with mice but using cord blood plasma as being the youngest you can get. This prompted my thinking to seek the cord blood treatment since the old mice became much younger in their activities and appearance.

To be honest I have to call the personal assessment of the cord blood treatment as Incomplete at the moment. I had the treatment in July of 2018 and little things like no longer being able to squat or kneel, then get back up without grabbing hold of something is a concern. This was something I was very happy about… that is, being able to stand up from a squatting or kneeling position without any aid whatsoever. I’m 69 years and 60 months of age and while I have no creaky, aching or arthritic joints, not being able to pop up without assistance is troubling to me.

I do leave open the possibility that my recent 5 day fast and re-feed hasn’t produced the muscle strength I had before as being more of the reason for my lack of pop up… but I think I was experiencing that before the fast. I have gone off meat, milk products and eggs entirely and am wondering if that may have something to do with the lack of protein for muscle recovery.

I’ve lately introduced hemp protein into some of my meals (like the oatmeal with the hemp protein powder + some others, and frozen blueberries with almond milk I had last night) and am spending less time in front of the computer and more time outdoors working as the weather permits.

But if there’s a stiff cold wind blowin’ I’m stayin’ inside.

Other than the above I started doing a one hour dry sauna when the sun was shining (in my plastic bubble house) until a hard north east wind blew it and the heavy flooring I had it tied to, over. Me (and the cats) are missing that ritual and I’m hoping to have it back up and repaired within the next couple of days.

Of course I take supplements by the handful but those vary as I may change the days I take certain ones and replace any I think may not be cost effective.

And there’s the Naringin (becoming Naringenin) I take at bedtime + sleeping on one side or another to allow any brain garbage like tau an a-beta to be removed by the Naringenin, to help prevent Alzheimer’s.

Hey Lonnie,
Thanks for your posts. I am way behind on the latest alternative cancer treatments. Would you post a short list of relevant resources? The limit of my research is Gerson Therapy, Hulda Clark, Dr. Contraris (Hospital of Good Hope), Dr. Revici. I would lo update my personal data base .

Please keep in mind I have had no close ties to Cancer since I’ve read the research I’m about to relay, so no personal evidence of efficacy.

I did mention on one of this sites video comments section that if I were diagnosed with Cancer, the first thing I would do would be go home and fast for 5 days. This after following Valter Longo for a time and learning that it takes about 3 to 4 days of fasting for our bodies to use up all the glucose (that is made in our gut) and after it is consumed, our bodies convert over to devouring our stored fat using our liver and it quickly converts it to ketone bodies that is used as fuel. This is important since cancer thrives on glucose but cannot utilize ketones. And yes, our brains can do quite well on ketones as fuel.

That would be my first step. After finishing my 5 day fast I would consume healthy oils like Walnut oil, MCT (Medium Chain Triglycerides) oil, and foods that provide good oils like Almond butter, hemp seed oil, flaxseed etc… oatmeal, berries and some good sources of protein for a time. After refeeding I would get a second opinion in re: my Cancer diagnosis and would especially look at my recent and new lab work and compare the two.

I would also include Milk Thistle (or its extracts… Sylimarin or Sylabinin I think) after reading research done by Colorado University where they determined it worked against different types of Cancer… like skin, lung… some others if I recall correctly. (I’ll try to find the relevant links.) Granted they were mouse studies but much of what is found in mice is a conserved trait that we humans also have, so well worth doing.

For me personally I wouldn’t have to add the Milk Thistle or Sylimarin as I take these two supplements on alternate days as it is. And I trust the research so much that I would be very disappointed to receive a cancer diagnosis/prognosis.

Thanks Lonnie: I have done many, many long, supervised water fasts with Natural Hygienists (Joel Fuhrman predecessors). My doctor felt that water fasting was contra-indicated for advanced cancer. Perhaps early stage cancer it helps.
Gerson therapy-with huge track record-involves 13 fresh pressed juices daily (with Norwalk juicer), coffee enemas, and supplementation. They heavily support liver with extracts (used to be raw calves liver juice).
Milk thistle is best extracted with alcohol-which I think would be questionable for cancer patients. I’ve tried lighting the liquid on fire to burn off the alcohol, but not sure about the effect. For sure, I would immediately clean up my environment-no cleaning chemicals, bleach, mold, no bad dentistry, clean the air, move away from pollution. Go 100% organic-move to where I could pick it and eat it. I would do at least 10 EDTA drips to get rid of heavy metals. Plus Myer’s cocktails, Quinton drips, peroxide drips. I would contact Gerson Institute, and Hypocrates Inst. in Florida for starters and get a consensus opinion. ZERO salt, I’d question oil as well. I would hate to die because of laziness.

I was interested in some of the new immune therapy and cellular protocols being developed, to directly target cancer cells, if you have links for those.

Also, here’s the introduction to a story behind a registration wall of a news source in Britain. They suggest aspirin and ibuprofen but personally I would use White Willow Bark instead.
________________________________________________________________________

Taking ibuprofen and aspirin can triple the likelihood of surviving cancer, a new study suggests.

A trial at the University of California found the five-year survival rate of 25 per cent increased to 78 per cent when some patients took the anti-inflammatory medications.

The drug’s apparently dramatic beneficial effect applied to patients with an alteration to a particular gene in their cancerous tumour, known as PIK3CA.

The scientists behind the research say this is significant because that gene alteration occurs across a range of different cancers, including breast, bowel and endometrial cancer.
————————————————————————————————-
Interestingly, on the same link page of the Telegraph was this contradictory story.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/01/22/aspirin-self-medicating-boosts-risk-dangerous-bleeds-major-study/
____________________________________________________________________________________
Aspirin should not be taken to prevent heart disease unless on doctors’ orders, scientists have warned after a major study found the drug “substantially” increases the risk of dangerous bleeds.

A review of 164,225 people in their fifties, sixties and seventies found that regularly taking the inexpensive drug boosts the chances of major bleeding by more than 40 per cent.

Aspirin has long been recommended for patients already known to suffer from heart conditions and those at high risk of stroke, with evidence indicating its blood-thinning qualities render the risk of side-effects worthwhile.

In a hurry and forgot the link… anxious to getting back to reading the mountain of links I’ve saved over time. Thanks Laurence for prompting me to search for the Ashwagandha-as-Metformin/Rapamycin-mimetic. ‘-)

Thanks for links. Very helpful. Have you determined the best way to take Withaferin-A as a preventative? Best sources? Dosages? (looks like therapeutic doses around 20mg/kg body weight and timings important) Seems off-the-cuff to me that some combo of whole plant, and extract would be ideal. I’m spending time in India, and later this year I’ll investigate sources.

In prior post I mentioned Norwalk Juicer-a hydraulic press juicer used in Gerson Therapy. I’m convinced that juicing the leaves of say WS plant might be a powerful addition to its therapy use. I had been interested in juicing marijuana leaves for the cannabinoids in respiratory conditions, but haven’t gotten around to it.

Here, we initiate an effort to identify nutraceuticals—safer, naturally ‐ occurring compounds—that mimic the anti‐aging effects of metformin and rapamycin without adverse effects. We applied several bioinformatic approaches and deep learning methods to the Library of Integrated Network‐based Cellular Signatures (LINCS) dataset to map the gene and pathway level signatures of metformin and rapamycin and screen for matches among over 800 natural compounds. We then predicted the safety of each compound with an ensemble of deep neural network classifiers. The analysis revealed many novel candidate metformin and rapamycin mimetics, including allantoin and ginsenoside (metformin), epigallocatechin gallate and isoliquiritigenin (rapamycin), and withaferin A (both). Four relatively unexplored compounds also scored well with rapamycin. This work revealed promising candidates for future experimental validation while demonstrating the applications of powerful screening methods for this and similar endeavors.
____________________________________________________________
Have you determined the best way to take Withaferin-A as a preventative? Best sources? Dosages? (looks like therapeutic doses around 20mg/kg body weight and timings important) Seems off-the-cuff to me that some combo of whole plant, and extract would be ideal.
———————————————————————–
I actually only take an Ashwagandha root supplement of 900 daily as a preventive measure. For a time I would take two vegi-caps per day but decided to limit myself to just one.

Reason is, I’ve read in another link that rapamycin in the prescribed form was tested for being taken in a large dose for a short time in mice, possibly due to some unnamed side effects in the link provided below.

And while I do not think I would be in any danger if taking even large doses of Ashwagandha, I’m not trying to cure anything so why take the chance. The link to that information is below:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-08/uowh-brt082316.php
________________________________________________________________________________
In prior post I mentioned Norwalk Juicer-a hydraulic press juicer used in Gerson Therapy. I’m convinced that juicing the leaves of say WS plant might be a powerful addition to its therapy use. I had been interested in juicing marijuana leaves for the cannabinoids in respiratory conditions, but haven’t gotten around to it.
————————————————————————————————————————————–
I like the idea of cold pressed and look for that in things I buy, when it applies. But I bought a juicer when I thought I was going to have a good fruit crop some years ago… didn’t happen and the juicer remains in its box even today.

Speaking of marijuana leaves, I recently bought seeds of Industrial Hemp in the hope of growing a small plot for the purpose of harvesting the seeds for a larger planting next year. I’ve contacted my FSA agent for the purpose of learning if the Federal Ag Dept is going to be issuing base acre allotments per farm (with the passage of the last farm bill which makes growing Industrial Hemp legal in all states) and she’s supposed to get back to me this week. I have a hemp billfold and a pair of hemp shoes… the shoes are comfortable and the wallet has lasted more than a decade with little wear.

I was a cotton farmer in an earlier time so I’m no stranger to farming… but hemp farming is an unknown.

Thanks. On further reading prevention protocols seem to recommend A root extract as you say. They say Withaferin-A is a cytotoxin and not to take it. However, tumor reduction and prevention occurs with high concentrations of W-A which has a chemotherapeutic effect. I have no idea myself what’s what. Very confusing unless someone has clinical success with humans. (I don’t have cancer BTW but would like to up my general prevention)

They part that I know is that they just sped things up so fast. The race is on…
Israel doing something inexpensive?

I suspect our prices might suddenly moderate.
——————————————————————————————————————-
I agree entirely Deb. Like you I’m skeptical about the one year target for release as treatment but I like their putting their own feet to the fire to get it done.

To me (someone who never studied science in high school, much less in college) this seems like the first time for an approach without a trillion dollar drug target to tackle one of our more expensive illnesses.

It almost seems holistic in nature as they will eventually treat an individual’s cancer rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

I just read about a company who has figured out a way to test for lung cancer just from a blood sample. They tested hundreds of biopsied blood samples and detected the cancer 90% of the time. This doesn’t sound like much but it means that many of the current life threatening biopsies may can be avoided and monthly testing for suspected missed cases can be done as follow-up.

We do truly live in the best of times and they are only going to get better based on exponential discovery.

I read the AHA Presidential Advisory and read this….”Finally, we note that a trial has never been conducted to test the effect on CHD outcomes of a low-fat diet that increases intake of healthful nutrient-dense carbohydrates and fiber-rich foods such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes that are now recommended in dietary guidelines.” My question is why the hell not? Also in this advisory, they don’t recommend reducing total fat but replacing saturated fat with mono or better polyunsaturated fat (high linoleic acid fats). Now I am questioning those purporting no oil diets are better. I am WFPB and eat no added oils/fats except from nuts and avocados. Am I doing more harm than good?

They can only base their conclusions on what good quality evidence (ie primarily RCTs) shows. As for why no studies, because nobody will fund it. The animal fats and vegetable oils people won’t because who wants to fund a study that might show that their products are harmful?

However, if we accept that there are no RCTs, what do other trials and observational studies show? Esselstyn showed that a no-oil plant food diet reversed heart disease in humans. Oils have not been shown to do that. Harvard showed that whole grain consumption reduced heart disease risk significantly more than oils and animal fats. So, no, i believe you are not doing more harm than good.

‘When dairy fat was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively. Furthermore, replacing the same number of calories from dairy fat with healthful carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease. Replacing dairy fat with other types of animal fat, such as from red meat, predicted a modest 6% higher risk of cardiovascular disease.’https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/

I am underweight, but I am losing even more weight since going WFPB. Perhaps this is something that I should or should not be alarmed about.

Before going vegan (Whole Food Plant Based [Nutritarian] to be specific), I was already slightly underweight at 117 pounds. I am 5’4 and 27 years old, female.
I used to eat a lot of processed foods, cheese, eggs, and a few lean meats before transitioning. I rarely ate veggies and barely any fruit. Never ate any legumes or flaxseeds.

Since eating a more nutritious and high-fiber diet, I now weigh 105 pounds. I use Cronometer to make sure to eat the right amount of calories everyday (2100 calories for my BMI) and I drink lots of water throughout the day.

I make sure that I am eating the right foods and I keep a food diary. My food diary is open for viewing for those interested.

I follow Dr. Greger’s “Daily Dozen” and cut out oils as well after doing heavy research. I have a high-carb, low fat diet and I eat lots of healthy fats such as avocados and nuts in moderation. I eat lots of cooked foods. I supplement B12 and vit D. The only foods I don’t eat much of in the “Daily Dozen are beans and legumes, because I’ve always had a strong aversion to the texture of beans and it is hard for me, but I am always working my way up to eating more.

According to the American Dietary Association, my BMI is considered severely underweight. I also know that these dietary studies are funded by the meat and dairy industry. I am also aware that the so-called “normal” BMI rate in America has been adjusted to fit the “normal” obese individuals of America who eat the (SAD) Standard American Diet high in meat and dairy. I do not have a vegan-friendly doctor where I live and every doctor I’ve researched on this issue has said that I need to start eating animal fat to gain a “healthy” weight.

Physically, I feel fine! I have more energy before going vegan, I’ve been happier, I’ve been exercising more (moderate cardio exercises 4 times per week), and my heart palpitations have reduced. My immune system is strong. My headaches have also started going away. My digestion is a lot more regular as well than it has ever been in my entire life. I have a good appetite.

My theory is that since I’ve cut out the bad oils and bad fats and have been eating high fiber foods, that my body has been getting rid of the bad fats that I used to eat and is now stabilizing on this new WFPB diet.

I’ve also been under a lot of stress since getting married for the first time 6 months ago into a pretty difficult marriage and I’ve been worrying about a lot of things, which I am trying to get under control. I know that stress isn’t good at all, but I still remain a pretty laid-back and logical person.

My goal is to begin working out more to gain a healthy amount of muscle when it gets warmer outside in the spring to resolve this issue since muscle weighs more than fat.

Why am I losing weight when I am already skinny? Is this something I should be worried about? I would appreciate any advice on this potential issue.

Grace, if one of my patients continued to lose weight, I would insist they see a good physician.
Your thyroid may be overactive, or you may have diabetes, or…
Anyway, go get checked out sooner than later.

Thank you for chiming in Marilyn, great advice. I did see my physician frequently at the time, but he failed to see or remark on my 25% of body weight weight loss. I may just bring that up at my next appt.

I know Dr Greger did have a video on slowing metabolism with eating veggies (body becomes more efficient) around here.. I will post it if I can find it. The concept was not a popular with some commenters at that time lol

Grace, I lost weight at the beginning, and I am at a lower bmi than you (taller with same weights) . However, i found that weight loss quickly leveled off, my metabolism slowed :( and then the weight started the slow climb back up, along with cholesterol levels and blood pressure. Years later, I find I can eat maybe 1450 calories or less. I exercise (a lot) daily. If I eat more calories, I gain (unwanted) weight. Check out Dr Greger’s Daily Dozen and maybe download the free app. Good luck!

Grace, not sure if you have used the ‘ Smart BMI’ calculator before? https://www.smartbmicalculator.com/?ru=1 It’s interesting and might give you a different perspective.
I had/have the same trouble with beans and found that I really needed to spend time finding great recipes that I would enjoy making and eating. I don’t look at the Daily Dozen list so much as I now think in terms of “what do I feel like eating for the next couple of days?” We eat a lot of great soups in our house, and many feature lentils. Might be an easier way to start.
I personally eat 1 tbsp ground flax daily, no avocado or nuts, no pasta, and still my weight loss eased off and slowly climbed back up. As Marilyn suggested, it would be a good idea to check back with your doc if your weight does not stabilize or you feel unwell.

OK. Big Food, Big Pharma, et. al. lie, deceive, self promote, make claims out of context-THIS IS A GIVEN. For us, that have already seen the lie, we need health science. Ajonus Vonderplantz (probably misspelled) founder of Primal Diet, claimed to have self cured cancer eating raw meat, eggs, cheese, butter and milk. I have met him and seen people who followed his protocols for 10 years +, whose bodies increased muscle mass and muscle and bone density and had achieved vibrant health. His claim was that 100% RAW makes the difference. I tried his diet and had difficulties after 2 months and went back to plant based vegan-partially out of fear. The point I raise is this: is RAW BUTTER harmful in an otherwise pristine diet?

Your expose is based on unhealthy individuals, eating processed supermarket food and DAIRY INDUSTRY products which are no doubt destructive to health. This is disease based science which is useless to people already on the road to health.

All isolated oils decrease Flow Mediated Dilation which correlates strongly with cardiovascular disease. As far as whole foods that contain significant fat, avocados and nuts qualify. As far as we know these foods are associated with decreased disease and premature death when eaten in moderate amounts, but not the isolated oil, and not nut butters.

Hi Question – Thanks for your inquiry! In place of butter (or oils) on your toast, healthier alternatives would include spreading on an avocado, a natural nut or seed butter (ex. peanut/almond/walnut/sunflower seed butters without added oils/sugar), a no sugar added fruit spread, tahini, or hummus. Here is a link with some additional ideas for spicing up your toast! (https://www.forksoverknives.com/healthy-vegan-ways-to-top-your-morning-toast/#gs.qf2hooND). I hope this helps give you a few new ideas!